Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[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.

I hope neither launches a jihad.

Like the real jihadis, they mostly will harm each other.

 

[Ringtone]

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 ...

Science isn't about belief? So you don't believe in the methodology of science or its underlying metaphysics?

 

[james bond]

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 You saw a blog headline once, and regurgitated the talking point without knowing that the study it was based on was retracted.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.
.

I think there isn't enough evidence because one has to show how much GMO and from where it came from first. It is not easy to do. Yet, many people are concerned and have opted to eat non-GMO foods whenever possible. How else would Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market become so successful? You do not advertise a food is GMO .

If GMO was okay, then I would not get so defensive. I'd promote it. But I notice you do not exactly do that.

 

[james bond]

James Bond is the

View attachment 462715

Congratulations, James!

Thank you, you lying ass dog haha.

But I want you to count to infinity in your head.

 

[Ringtone]

Thank you, you lying ass dog haha.

But I want you to count to infinity in your head.

One cannot count to infinity, can one, dumbass?

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

The actual infinite only exists as a mathematical CONCEPT, and it only exists in minds, doesn't it, dumbass?

You're a lying-ass dog, aren't you, dumbass?

 

[Hollie]

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 ...

Science isn't about belief? So you don't believe in the methodology of science or its underlying metaphysics?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

 

[Ringtone]

Thank you, you lying ass dog haha.

But I want you to count to infinity in your head.

Hey, James, I'm still waiting on you to explain how God, an indivisible, unembodied mind of incomparable greatness and perfection, is composed of an actually infinite, quantitatively divisible substance, which would necessarily be material.

You're a lying-ass dog, aren't you?

 

[james bond]

Like the real jihadis, they mostly will harm each other.

How about like the real GMO foods, they will cause cancer to each other haha?

Don't go off your rocker again over it. I've already said trying to prove GMO foods causes cancer and tumors would be like saying if you eat GMO foods, then the boogeyman will get you.

(Such as in -- Sinister (2012) - IMDb. What an evil twist at the end.)

 

[Ringtone]

How about like the real GMO foods, they will cause cancer to each other haha?

Don't go off your rocker again over it. I've already said trying to prove GMO foods causes cancer and tumors would be like saying if you eat GMO foods, then the boogeyman will get you.

(Such as in -- Sinister (2012) - IMDb. What an evil twist at the end.)

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.

You're a lying-ass dog, aren't you?

 

[Ringtone]

How about like the real GMO foods, they will cause cancer to each other haha?

Don't go off your rocker again over it. I've already said trying to prove GMO foods causes cancer and tumors would be like saying if you eat GMO foods, then the boogeyman will get you.

(Such as in -- Sinister (2012) - IMDb. What an evil twist at the end.)

You lying-ass dog.

 

[james bond]

Thank you, you lying ass dog haha.

But I want you to count to infinity in your head.

Hey, James, I'm still waiting on you to explain how God, an indivisible, unembodied mind of incomparable greatness and perfection, is composed of an actually infinite, quantitatively divisible substance, which would necessarily be material.

You're a lying-ass dog, aren't you?

Haha. You provided it yourself. The proof was in the KCA as the infinitely powerful God.

Thus, you're the dirty lying arse dog being wrong about actual infinity. It may be due to a long line in the Rawlings.

The ignore boogeyman will get you. He loves to get lying arse dogs.

 

[Ringtone]

How about like the real GMO foods, they will cause cancer to each other haha?

Don't go off your rocker again over it. I've already said trying to prove GMO foods causes cancer and tumors would be like saying if you eat GMO foods, then the boogeyman will get you.

(Such as in -- Sinister (2012) - IMDb. What an evil twist at the end.)

So, James, did you ever explain what it means to say that the actually infinite only exists in the supernatural world? Is that like a secret code or something?

Only exists in the supernatural world, he says.

 

[Ringtone]

The ignore boogeyman will get you. He loves to get lying arse dogs.

Hey, James, did you get your theology out of a Crackerjack box?

 

[Ringtone]

The ignore boogeyman will get you. He loves to get lying arse dogs.

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?

 

[Ringtone]

The ignore boogeyman will get you. He loves to get lying arse dogs.

An actual mind infinity, he says.



Got link?

 

[Ringtone]

Wish they'd get a hotel room ...

Or was it actual infinities were potential infinities? I don't remember. No matter. It's hilarious either way.

 

[Ringtone]

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 ...

Science isn't about belief? So you don't believe in the methodology of science or its underlying metaphysics?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

So scientists don't believe things about empirical data? So empirical data interpret themselves? So some form of naturalism doesn't inform scientific interpretations?

That's weird.

 

[ReinyDays]

Science isn't about belief? So you don't believe in the methodology of science or its underlying metaphysics?

Science is never based on belief ... only on observation ... take an iron weight chest high and drop it, there's no belief that it will fall to the ground, we can observe it hit the ground ... every time ... we define this as gravity, and all of us agree what this word means ... we see it with our own eyes, neither faith nor belief is required to understand this ... just simple observation ...

I don't know what you mean by "believe in methodology" ... I pour the water before I load the basket with coffee every morning, as a method ... nothing wrong with loading the coffee first and then the water ... what's there to believe in either way? ...

"Metaphysics" is strictly philosophy ... the scientific version is plain old regular "physics" ...

Not that we don't ask students of science to believe certain things, happens all the time ... we have to accept covalent bonding our first two years of chemistry lessons before we're taught what this actually is ... the difference is that the field values are known, only the student is asked to believe, not the instructor ...

 

[Hollie]

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 ...

Science isn't about belief? So you don't believe in the methodology of science or its underlying metaphysics?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

So scientists don't believe things about empirical data? So empirical data interpret themselves? So some form of naturalism doesn't inform scientific interpretations?

That's weird.

There is no requirement for "belief" in the face of empirical data. One can reach conclusions when the data supports the theory and testing leads to conclusions. This is a pretty basic method for separating mere gainsay from what we call knowledge. The data supporting biological evolution to include fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., have been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of scientists in varying fields of study of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? You have consistently failed to support your claims to your gods. Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.

 

[Ringtone]

There is no requirement for "belief" in the face of empirical data.

That's weird.