What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,187
Reaction score
13,982
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?

Why do you feel that?

It could be poison. Monsanto makes Roundup. Many people want foods that is natural and nutritious. They want food that taste good. You didn't understand the cheap, fast, and good of food processing.

It could be poison.

A GMO could be poison and no one noticed while they were developing it? LOL!

Monsanto makes Roundup.

You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?
 

Dr Grump

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
30,113
Reaction score
5,686
Points
1,130
Location
From the Back of Beyond
I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible. See OP again and see Ding's stance. We are not the same person, dummy. I told you that before.

Does that answer your question?

Never asked you before, Dummy.

And if you don't believe that evolution is possible, you're as dumb as a sack of rocks. And if you don't believe that evolution is possible, but some has just been around since year dot, then you are even dumber.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,999
Reaction score
1,156
Points
170
They are, absolutely. As is every single grocery store, or restaurant that features "Non-GMO!"

Well, there are many people who disagree with you including me. If GMO is safe, then the cos who genetically engineer the food should be open about it. Anyway, it is a personal choice. There is no harm in being careful. Besides, I think organic food (the way food was grown before Darwin) tastes better.

Total nonsense. For one...how do you know the product is GMO, if not labelled as such? This simple question makes your point look pretty stupid.

They know it is not smart to accept the labelling, because irrational people like you will suddenly stop buying their product. It isn't rocket surgery. But you will be you.

Why would people stop buying the product if genetic engineering is safe? That sounds irrational to me.

Isn't mutation supposed to beneficial? Don't atheists believe in mutations? I don't think it is, but I'm YEC. For example, one can get fast and cheap foods, i.e. fast GMO foods (assuming they are because they do not advertise as non-GMO which would be more expensive), but they aren't good for you.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,999
Reaction score
1,156
Points
170
It could be poison.

A GMO could be poison and no one noticed while they were developing it? LOL!

Monsanto makes Roundup.

You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?

Haha. I think most of know that. Duh.

What's interesting is you mention seed. What organic farmers want are plants and trees, but also have them bear seeds or fruit.

On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds? Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,999
Reaction score
1,156
Points
170
Instead, we have to have this kind of labeling in states where they are forcing cos to label.

iu


Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?

In the topic isnt you misunderstanding me. It's you misunderstanding GM

It's not just me. There are a whole bunch of people for non-GMOs, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market, and more stores are successful in reaching this market.

In fact, the non-GMO label has taken the lead in terms of marketing and rising sales due to the pro-GMO cos and spending big money to hide and defeat measures for more openness. Why would they do that when it could be a a sign of quality and safety? Are you saying it isn't? For example, it may be safe, but less quality? Remember, I said foods can be fast, cheap, and good, but you can only have two?

I think it makes their food look shady, secretive, and unsafe when you said it was safe.

Do you know what's sprayed on this corn by the farmers? ...

Not Roundup for non-GMO, but go ahead and tell us for the world to hear.

Is this a marketing tool?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,187
Reaction score
13,982
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
They are, absolutely. As is every single grocery store, or restaurant that features "Non-GMO!"

Well, there are many people who disagree with you including me. If GMO is safe, then the cos who genetically engineer the food should be open about it. Anyway, it is a personal choice. There is no harm in being careful. Besides, I think organic food (the way food was grown before Darwin) tastes better.

Total nonsense. For one...how do you know the product is GMO, if not labelled as such? This simple question makes your point look pretty stupid.

They know it is not smart to accept the labelling, because irrational people like you will suddenly stop buying their product. It isn't rocket surgery. But you will be you.

Why would people stop buying the product if genetic engineering is safe? That sounds irrational to me.

Isn't mutation supposed to beneficial? Don't atheists believe in mutations? I don't think it is, but I'm YEC. For example, one can get fast and cheap foods, i.e. fast GMO foods (assuming they are because they do not advertise as non-GMO which would be more expensive), but they aren't good for you.

Why would people stop buying the product if genetic engineering is safe? That sounds irrational to me.


Lots of irrational people out there.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,187
Reaction score
13,982
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
It could be poison.

A GMO could be poison and no one noticed while they were developing it? LOL!

Monsanto makes Roundup.

You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?

Haha. I think most of know that. Duh.

What's interesting is you mention seed. What organic farmers want are plants and trees, but also have them bear seeds or fruit.

On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds? Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit?

On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds? Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit?

Usually, with a few exceptions.
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
475
Points
140
" May Be "

* Working On *

Philosophical monism, right?
Following the order of the discourse, the above alludes to the countably infinite set of natural/counting numbers, yes?
An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .

In linear algebra, a complex square matrix U is unitary if its conjugate transpose U* is also its inverse, that is, if
{\displaystyle U^{*}U=UU^{*}=I,}
where
I is the identity matrix.

In physics, especially in quantum mechanics, the Hermitian adjoint of a matrix is denoted by a dagger (†) and the equation above becomes
{\displaystyle U^{\dagger }U=UU^{\dagger }=I.}
The real analogue of a unitary matrix is an orthogonal matrix. Unitary matrices have significant importance in quantum mechanics because they preserve norms, and thus, probability amplitudes.



* Curious Preferences Through Direct Or Indirect Observation *
I agree with the above, but I'm not sure I follow you below. Given the order of discourse, I wrote:
Then you wrote:
Again, assuming I understand what you're getting at, my response would be that the eternal existent could not be either a physical composite nor a qualitatively divisible being, but would necessarily be a comprehensively self-subsistent whole entailing all attributes of greatness and perfection at once! In other words, for example, humanity's set of knowledge is an aggregate. God understands all things at once in a comprehensively indivisible cognition.
To allude that gawd understands all things is often related that gawd is intuitive to mammon ; and , an equivalent parallel scheme in science of nature is that existence is intuitive by induction and deduction from an a'priori basis .

* Information From Data Provided As Is *
The state or quality of infinitude pertains to a physical magnitude with no limit, which is an absurdity, or to a conceptual magnitude with no limit, the latter being the mathematical concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate quantity or value, which only exists in minds as an idea.
An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .


* Depends On Which We Mean To Validate With Certainty Rite Or Write *
Fair enough.
Fair enough, but proof in what sense?
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
970
Points
210
I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible. See OP again and see Ding's stance. We are not the same person, dummy. I told you that before.

Does that answer your question?

Never asked you before, Dummy.

And if you don't believe that evolution is possible, you're as dumb as a sack of rocks. And if you don't believe that evolution is possible, but some has just been around since year dot, then you are even dumber.



You repeatedly implied that Ding and I are the same person on another thread and on this one. Shut up, liar.

As for your failure to grasp or directly address the argument in the OP regarding evodelusion's underderlying, metaphysical apriority, you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
 
Last edited:
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
970
Points
210
" May Be "

* Working On *

Philosophical monism, right?
Following the order of the discourse, the above alludes to the countably infinite set of natural/counting numbers, yes?
An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .

In linear algebra, a complex square matrix U is unitary if its conjugate transpose U* is also its inverse, that is, if
{\displaystyle U^{*}U=UU^{*}=I,}
where
I is the identity matrix.

In physics, especially in quantum mechanics, the Hermitian adjoint of a matrix is denoted by a dagger (†) and the equation above becomes
{\displaystyle U^{\dagger }U=UU^{\dagger }=I.}
The real analogue of a unitary matrix is an orthogonal matrix. Unitary matrices have significant importance in quantum mechanics because they preserve norms, and thus, probability amplitudes.



* Curious Preferences Through Direct Or Indirect Observation *
I agree with the above, but I'm not sure I follow you below. Given the order of discourse, I wrote:
Then you wrote:
Again, assuming I understand what you're getting at, my response would be that the eternal existent could not be either a physical composite nor a qualitatively divisible being, but would necessarily be a comprehensively self-subsistent whole entailing all attributes of greatness and perfection at once! In other words, for example, humanity's set of knowledge is an aggregate. God understands all things at once in a comprehensively indivisible cognition.
To allude that gawd understands all things is often related that gawd is intuitive to mammon ; and , an equivalent parallel scheme in science of nature is that existence is intuitive by induction and deduction from an a'priori basis .

* Information From Data Provided As Is *
The state or quality of infinitude pertains to a physical magnitude with no limit, which is an absurdity, or to a conceptual magnitude with no limit, the latter being the mathematical concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate quantity or value, which only exists in minds as an idea.
An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .


* Depends On Which We Mean To Validate With Certainty Rite Or Write *
Fair enough.
Fair enough, but proof in what sense?
An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements, and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis.
Say what? Relevance?

. . . gawd is intuitive to mammon . . .
Say what?

* Depends On Which We Mean To Validate With Certainty Rite Or Write *
Say what?

Moving on. . . .

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

You wrote:
* Proof Must Be Falsifiable *
The a priori apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof? That's weird.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
970
Points
210
Say what?

Yeah ... Monk-Eye knows math ... over my pay-grade but sounds correct ... we both should think of his posts as learning opportunities ...

It sounds, correct to you, eh?

I follow the math just fine; what I don't follow is its relevance to my observation.

In our discourse and in two different posts, he wrote the following phrase: and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis.

Accept for the fact that the phrase is poorly expressed, I interpreted it the first time relative to my observation to which it made some sense per the actual mathematics. I didn't think it polite or necessary to point out the grammatical issues with the phrase. However, its expression in his recent post in response to a similar expression of my observation, albeit, in a different context, doesn't seem to follow at all. Hence, I need clarification.
 
Last edited:

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,617
Reaction score
5,008
Points
1,130
" May Be "

* Working On *

Philosophical monism, right?
Following the order of the discourse, the above alludes to the countably infinite set of natural/counting numbers, yes?
An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .

In linear algebra, a complex square matrix U is unitary if its conjugate transpose U* is also its inverse, that is, if
{\displaystyle U^{*}U=UU^{*}=I,}
where
I is the identity matrix.

In physics, especially in quantum mechanics, the Hermitian adjoint of a matrix is denoted by a dagger (†) and the equation above becomes
{\displaystyle U^{\dagger }U=UU^{\dagger }=I.}
The real analogue of a unitary matrix is an orthogonal matrix. Unitary matrices have significant importance in quantum mechanics because they preserve norms, and thus, probability amplitudes.



* Curious Preferences Through Direct Or Indirect Observation *
I agree with the above, but I'm not sure I follow you below. Given the order of discourse, I wrote:
Then you wrote:
Again, assuming I understand what you're getting at, my response would be that the eternal existent could not be either a physical composite nor a qualitatively divisible being, but would necessarily be a comprehensively self-subsistent whole entailing all attributes of greatness and perfection at once! In other words, for example, humanity's set of knowledge is an aggregate. God understands all things at once in a comprehensively indivisible cognition.
To allude that gawd understands all things is often related that gawd is intuitive to mammon ; and , an equivalent parallel scheme in science of nature is that existence is intuitive by induction and deduction from an a'priori basis .

* Information From Data Provided As Is *
The state or quality of infinitude pertains to a physical magnitude with no limit, which is an absurdity, or to a conceptual magnitude with no limit, the latter being the mathematical concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate quantity or value, which only exists in minds as an idea.
An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .


* Depends On Which We Mean To Validate With Certainty Rite Or Write *
Fair enough.
Fair enough, but proof in what sense?
An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements, and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis.
Say what? Relevance?

. . . gawd is intuitive to mammon . . .
Say what?

* Depends On Which We Mean To Validate With Certainty Rite Or Write *
Say what?

Moving on. . . .

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

You wrote:
* Proof Must Be Falsifiable *
The a priori apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof? That's weird.
"The a priori apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof? That's weird."

It means the a priori YEC'ist claim "... because I say so" is meaningless.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,999
Reaction score
1,156
Points
170
It could be poison.

A GMO could be poison and no one noticed while they were developing it? LOL!

Monsanto makes Roundup.

You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?

Haha. I think most of know that. Duh.

What's interesting is you mention seed. What organic farmers want are plants and trees, but also have them bear seeds or fruit.

On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds? Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit?

On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds? Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit?

Usually, with a few exceptions.

What I hear is the genetic modification makes it sterile. One can't use it for replanting.

The farmers have to buys seeds from Monsanto for the next crop.

Also, farmed salmon are sterile.

Has your penis fallen off yet?
 
Last edited:
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
970
Points
210
* Proof Must Be Falsifiable *

The a priori apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof? That's weird.

EDIT: POST #692.

For the sake of clarity, the above should probably read: "The a priori apprehension regarding the necessity of an eternal existent requires a proof? That's weird."
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,999
Reaction score
1,156
Points
170
Why would people stop buying the product if genetic engineering is safe?
Maybe that is because i have called it irrational four times. In posts. Posted directly to you.

Why are you like this?

I am pointing out the GMO cos do not embrace their opportunity. They are fighting and paying big money to hide the benefits. Even ReinyDays isn't shouting to explain its benefits after asking me the difference between organic which uses milder pesticides and GMO farming.

OTOH, I hear about non-GMO foods all the time for it being healthy and tasting good and look for their logos on products. Today, the government enforced genetically engineered label looks foreboding.

Furthermore, eating GMO fast foods from Mickey D's or Kentucky Fried iguanas isn't exactly health foods and can cause obesity.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
970
Points
210
"The a priori apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof? That's weird."

It means the a priori YEC'ist claim "... because I say so" is meaningless.

:yapyapyapf:

So existence just popped into existence out of an ontological nothingness, that is to say, caused itself to exist before it existed, eh?

Did you go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall again? What did she give you? Shrooms? LSD?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,187
Reaction score
13,982
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
It could be poison.

A GMO could be poison and no one noticed while they were developing it? LOL!

Monsanto makes Roundup.

You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?

Haha. I think most of know that. Duh.

What's interesting is you mention seed. What organic farmers want are plants and trees, but also have them bear seeds or fruit.

On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds? Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit?

On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds? Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit?

Usually, with a few exceptions.

What I hear is the genetic modification makes it sterile. One can't use it for replanting.

The farmers have to buys seeds from Monsanto for the next crop.

Also, farmed salmon are sterile.

Has your penis fallen off yet?

What I hear is the genetic modification [Which one? There are many.] makes it sterile. One can't use it for replanting.

In some cases, that is correct. In most, it isn't.

The farmers have to buys seeds from Monsanto for the next crop.

That's part of the contract they sign, not because the seeds are sterile.

Also, farmed salmon are sterile.

So don't eat them, I don't.

Has your penis fallen off yet?

You're stroking yourself right now, aren't you?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,187
Reaction score
13,982
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Why would people stop buying the product if genetic engineering is safe?
Maybe that is because i have called it irrational four times. In posts. Posted directly to you.

Why are you like this?

I am pointing out the GMO cos do not embrace their opportunity. They are fighting and paying big money to hide the benefits. Even ReinyDays isn't shouting to explain its benefits after asking me the difference between organic which uses milder pesticides and GMO farming.

OTOH, I hear about non-GMO foods all the time for it being healthy and tasting good and look for their logos on products. Today, the government enforced genetically engineered label looks foreboding.

Furthermore, eating GMO fast foods from Mickey D's or Kentucky Fried iguanas isn't exactly health foods and can cause obesity.

They are fighting and paying big money to hide the benefits.


You're mistaken.
They advertise the benefits of their seeds to their customers, the farmers.

Furthermore, eating GMO fast foods from Mickey D's or Kentucky Fried iguanas isn't exactly health foods and can cause obesity.

The fat content and high calorie count is to blame, not the gene that resists Roundup.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top