Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Ringtone]

Science is never based on belief . . . only on observation. . . .

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.

 

[Hollie]

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

That's weird.

My post left you completely befuddled.

Consider a nice hot cup of tea and a coma.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think there isn't enough evidence because one has to show how much GMO and from where it came from first.

No, one would only have to connect the tumors to the one or two proteins produced by the modification. Do you even understand what GMOs are?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So scientists don't believe things about empirical data?

He said "science", not scientists. Pay attention!

 

[james bond]

I think there isn't enough evidence because one has to show how much GMO and from where it came from first.

No, one would only have to connect the tumors to the one or two proteins produced by the modification. Do you even understand what GMOs are?

Really? I heard it was altering the DNA. I can't believe it would be so easy. Which one or two proteins would identify GMO foods?

So many scare stories out there. Monsanto is good and bad. Who do you believe for the believers?

'It’s also hard for individuals to trust study results, as many are conducted by Monsanto, the maker of most genetically modified organisms, and others that aren't conducted in what researchers consider an acceptable scientific way.

“Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe,” said the Institute for Responsible Technology, which is opposed to GMOs. “They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.”

Is There Evidence GMO Foods Cause Cancer?

The evidence for and against the safety of GMOs in the food supply is confusing, and can be difficult for the layperson to understand. Determining whether eating genetically modified organisms increases the risks for cancer and other diseases can be a challenge. It's also...

www.newsmax.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I heard it was altering the DNA.

Now how in the bloody hell would a food alter your DNA?

 

[james bond]

I heard it was altering the DNA.

Now how in the bloody hell would a food alter your DNA?

I thought so. You don't know about the one of two proteins. Nothing to back up your statements.

Haha. Not altering your DNA.

What I heard was the evo scientists are altering the DNA of the food. not just the proteins. The modified proteins would go directly into your bloodstream.

 

[james bond]

Would the atheist evolution fans admit their scientists are artificial selecting the foods?

 

[Monk-Eye]

* A Round The World And Back *

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?

The inductions and deductions from properties of Identity matrix - Wikipedia are closely related with interpretations about monism .

A clear scope for the meaning of an Irrational number - Wikipedia could be useful .

An element with infinitude does not directly imply that an irrational number is magnanimous .

Consider an irrational number , for example the ratio of square root of 2 and 2 , or sqrt ( 2 ) / 2 , the irrational number is bounded , meaning that numbers on either side of the irrational number can be chosen to indicate an upper and lower bound , however choosing numbers nearer to the infinite number below the upper bound and above the lower bound until the distance between the numbers chosen and the number itself is zero does not ever occur .

Where an irrational number is presumed its properties are perceived to be indeterminate and more colloquially described as infinite , or perpetual , or without end when applying hermeneutics .

In antiquity an irrational number was denoted as a Surd - Wikipedia .

Taylor's theorem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* Appearances More Easily Through Natural Sciences *

Agree.
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.

An eternal existence would be an identity set with identity elements that have a quality of infinitude .

An identity set can be a singular infinitesimal element or an identity set can be a set with an infinite value of identity elements each with a property of infinitude , as infinitesimals , as monads .

* Reservations On Judgment *

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

I subscribe to things which are interesting to me and philosophical monism is interesting to me , there are also contributions to be made .

* Proof Must Be Falsifiable *

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

 

[ReinyDays]

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.

No, of course not ... there's no belief to be had with empirical data ... in fact, science goes to great lengths to avoid any interpretations of empirical data ... the air temperature is 14ºC, nothing left to interpret ...

You should try reading the scientific media outlets more ... where authors are required to be explicit and detailed on any interpretations or assumptions they make in their discourse ... as these are eminently challengeable ... and should be ... and more experiments conducted to remove interpretations and replace them with empirical data ... Micheal Faraday is an excellent example of this, he always lets the results of one experiment lead him to designing the next experiment, without trying to interpret the results ... and today he's credited with being the first to demonstrate the basic principles of modern physics ... Maxwell, Einstein and the founders of QM all relied heavily on Faradays work ...

 

[ReinyDays]

What I heard was the evo scientists are altering the DNA of the food. not just the proteins. The modified proteins would go directly into your bloodstream.

just a nitpick ... ALL proteins we eat are broken down into their component amino-acids ... and then re-formed into human proteins ...

 

[james bond]

What I heard was the evo scientists are altering the DNA of the food. not just the proteins. The modified proteins would go directly into your bloodstream.

just a nitpick ... ALL proteins we eat are broken down into their component amino-acids ... and then re-formed into human proteins ...

Monsanto is famous for poisonous Roundup.

The nit is blood is the liquid of life and one wouldn't want bad stuff like poisons going in there. Can you say the modified proteins are good for you? How do you know?

 

[Ringtone]

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

Hint: Eventually, you'll be dead.

A "mind infinity" . . . and it's "actual" too!

You do realize that the word mind is used as either a noun or a verb only, not an adjective, right?



Got link for this mind infinity thingy? Oh, wait! You're a lying-ass dog of a whore, as the process of counting toward infinity as the limit always existentially entails a finite number of potential infinity at any given point in time or being in the process. You're the lying-ass dog unsuccessfully trying to imply that I believe one can count to infinity.

What a lying-ass dog of an obfuscating whore!

Don't you mean the mathematical CONCEPT of an actual infinite, which only exists in minds? But, of course, if you cited the actuality of my observation, rather than the deformed straw man of a grammatical monstrosity in the above . . . your lying-ass dogishness would be manifest, especially given the fact that you yourself unwittingly proved that what I've been telling you all along is right.

Hot spanking damn! You falsified yourself.



It's almost as if you have nowhere else to go to obscure your lying-ass dogishness.

You can't allude to the infinite set of countable numbers anymore, as you have now unwittingly conceded that to be an example of what an actual infinity really is. Just like I have been telling you all along, it's a mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something, isn't it? It's the mathematical CONCEPT of a quantitatively surreal number/value, which only exists in minds, isn't it?

One cannot count to an unattainable number, can one, dumbass?

Why don't you count to infinity as you fornicate with yourself, dumbass?

Have your wife send us word when your dead so we can send flowers.

Oh, the irony!

You can't go back to claiming that the actual infinite only exists in the supernatural world, by which you mean God himself, given that you have now conceded that the actually infinite is a mathematical CONCEPT of a quantitatively divisible value or substance.

God is an indivisible, unembodied mind, isn't he, dumbass?

God is not a divisible composite of physical magnitude, is he, dumbass?

It's almost as if the you have been unwittingly conflating the qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics all your life.

When we say that "God is infinite" (an adjectival declarative, not a nounal declarative, dumbass), we mean that he's an indivisible being of incomparable greatness and perfection. It's strictly a superlative designation of quality.

The qualitative infinity of classical theism has absolutely nothing to do with the quantitative designations of mathematics regarding potential infinities and actual infinities, does it, dumbass?

It's almost as if your lying-ass dogishness has painted you into a corner with no place else to hide: . It's almost as if you're pants are on fire.

Oh, what tangled webs we weave. . . .

 

[Ringtone]

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.

You should try reading the scientific media outlets more. . . .

Like Bond, James Bond, you should stop obfuscating my actual pont. Thanks.

 

[ReinyDays]

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

Like Bond, James Bond, you should stop obfuscating my actual pont. Thanks.

You've muddied your point already ... mixing "belief" with "empirical" ... those two words mean opposites (almost) ... perhaps it is you who should clearify what you mean to say ...

 

[Ringtone]

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.

My post left you completely befuddled.

Consider a nice hot cup of tea and a coma.

Actually, my point still hasn't sunk into that mind of yours. Perhaps its quarters are too cramped due to its size.

 

[Ringtone]

You've muddied your point already ... mixing "belief" with "empirical" ... those two words mean opposites (almost) ... perhaps it is you who should clearify what you mean to say ...

Of course, I did. See above.

So you don't believe the first principle underlying scientific methodology is true?

That's weird.

 

[ReinyDays]

Of course, I did. See above.

Please point it out ...

So you don't believe the first principle underlying scientific methodology is true?

Which first principle is that? ... that something must be observable? ... what's to be believed? ...

 

[Ringtone]

Thank you, you lying ass dog haha.

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

Hey, James, ignorance is not a sin, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. None of us are God.

You know what is a sin? Lying.

I civilly and matter-a-factly informed you twice, from too different angles, why your contention regarding the actually infinite could not be right. After the second time, you went all wack on me . . . as if I were the idiot. So I took the gloves off.

When I made it abundantly clear that there was no way in hell you could be correct, especially after I showed how you had unwittingly falsified yourself in your deceit, you consciously held your nose and lied again.

Did you ask Jesus to forgive you?

 

[Hollie]

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.

My post left you completely befuddled.

Consider a nice hot cup of tea and a coma.

Actually, my point still hasn't sunk into that mind of yours. Perhaps its quarters are too cramped due to its size.

You're not understanding the terms you use. I addressed your errors and false statements in an earlier post. You made no effort to address that post.