Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

the market is still the best way to control anything objectionable

If it (the market) has the information, the whole information and nothing but the objective truth.

farmerman wrote:

or , like Herald, armed with half assed information

I am not going to comment what does 'half assed information' is supposed to mean, but so and so you are equipped with full assed information why don't you explain to us, whop are not entirely equipped, how much is the probability for the evolution to has happen in the real world.
The dispute is about who/what has created the species,right - and the claims are that it is either the Evolution or the Intelligent Design?
O.K. Let's see what we have then.
     SP - the sample space of the newly created species in the history record of life on Earth
     EV - the event of the Evolution to have created that species
     ID - the event of the Intelligent Design to have created that species
On the grounds of your unjustified claims that the event of evolution (EV) and the event of Intelligent Design (ID) are mutually exclusive as processes we have: P(EV&ID) = 0 [the probability for both processes to have created life, acting in combination, is zero]
on the other side we have P(EVorID) = 1 [as there are no other contenders besides the EV and ID for the creation of the species], in other words we have:
P(EVorID) = P(EV) + P(ID) - P(EV&ID) = 1
from where we have: P(EV) + P(ID) = 1
P(ID) = 1 - P(EV) = 1 - 10^-84 ~ 1
The solution of the equation gives the result that the probability for ID to have created the species is almost absolutely certain.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

If it (the market) has the information, the whole information and nothing but the objective truth.

Id say that even the least trained has waaay better insights and information than that which you glean from websites.
Without any experience in Qg, youre but a bystander without any knowledge.

Ag is a business, its not a religion.

1 Reply

@Herald,

You,

Quote:

The solution of the equation gives the result that the probability for ID to have created the species is almost absolutely certain.

"Is almost absolutely certain" is not 100% positive as is 'natural selection.'

Your religious beliefs has nothing to do with evolution; they stand on their own through observation and biological changes based on the environment.

2 Replies

@Herald,

your attempt at equating is interesting but rather simplistic.
"EVENTS" of evolution are , in the main, either extinction event or a sequence of possible adaptive scenarios. (The 5 great extinction events of history hd natural selection respond to the events by totally variable amount in each event)
Simplifying that would be like reducing everything to "yes" or "no".

Intelligent design never seems to account for the EVENTS upon which the "Cosmic Intelligence" plans to respond to these events. Does the cosmic intelligence shoot craps to have a great meteor smash into the earth just to "kick start" the Cenozoic just so the mammals could take over?.

Wheres the evidence for that sort of a play?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Without any experience in Qg, youre but a bystander without any knowledge.

And what is your experience in Quantum Geographic Information System or Quantum Gravity, or in your Quality Group ... or whatever Qg is supposed to mean there?

farmerman wrote:

Ag is a business, its not a religion.

The misinterpretation of Agriculture (AG) and presenting it as silver (Ag) is rather cross-cultural misunderstanding, than a business.
One of the major characteristics of any business is to deliver utility value and Quality of Service (QoS).
Where is the QoS in delivering acrylamid cancerogenesis?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Is almost absolutely certain" is not 100% positive as is 'natural selection.'

Have you understood at all the number or you will need some subtitles: one minus ten to the power of minus 84 - this means that it is 1 rounded to the 83th digit after the decimal point and that the first digit with any significant value in the EV is the 84th digit after the decimal point.

How much is the probability for an amino acid to 'appear' out of whatever - from the dust of the Big Bang theory, for example?
How much is the probability for the amino acids to create the polymers needed for the 22 proteins, best fitted for some purpose (life or photosynthesis, etc.)?
How much is the probability for genetic mechanics to appear and to start replicating the DNA sequences?
How much is the probability for a mutation:
     - to happen &
     - to become hereditary &
     - to 'improve' the species &
     - to 'create' brand new species?

P.S. A number without any ad hom would be O.K.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Thank you for calling out my shortcomings at typing. I tend to make mistakes for aome silly reason but Ive been accused by others that Im just lazy for not making the necessary corrections. As it turns out, my lack of talent in typing merely causes me to make entirely NEW typos so I don't really get anywhere.
My mistake at inserting A "Q" for an" A" in the firt clipped sentence is now corrected , ITs Ag. (Ag is an accepted diminutive for the word Agriculture . We use it on feed bags , licenses, certifications, pwsticide registrations etc almost as an adjective).

I assumed that my audience would understand that we weren't talking about nobel metal chemistry , But I should have caught the Qg)

SO---Now, how many years experience or training in Qg do you have? Hows it workin out for ya, making any money at it?

Where are you using ACrylimides in your crop cycle ? I dont cook anything for use, AND I don't raise corn or other grains for human food. ALL my crops are going into my stock as feed. I don't think my molasses contain any CARCINOGENS.( the more correct root of the word carcinogenesis or carcinogenicity) .

I would stop eating potato crisps (we calls em potato chips over here) They sometimes create acrylimides if cooked to a deeper brown. Also, if you eat meat, try to just eat it boiled, thatll limit the acrylimides and especially the nitrosamines that Maillard imparts (I make a decision to go for the taste and try not to fear my cooking practices)
You are entertaining if nothing else.

Also, Im not a chef so Im not using the Maillard Reaction to make acrylonitriles, acrylimides or nitrosamines.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Your response doesn't even come close to my

Quote:

"Is almost absolutely certain" is not 100% positive as is 'natural selection.'

Your numbers are meaningless to me. You need somebody that understands chemistry to answer your question. Natural selection has been proven 100% absolutely certain. Your "almost absolutely certain" doesn't even come close.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

CI, that equation is total bullshit from a fevered mind. It doesn't even equate (for step one).

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Natural selection has been proven 100% absolutely certain.

lol, really????????????????????????

THEN SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE ( for the nth time!!!!)

youi are just showing us your deeple ingrained B E L I E F

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

In fact, the word "proved" is another red flag that you are not understanding how science works. We talk about "proving" things in Math, not Science! In science we don't talk about "proof" we talk about *EVIDENCE*. What's the difference? "Proof" is absolute ... something is either proved or it isn't (as in math). But *EVIDENCE* accumulates. A theory accumulates more and more proof, and thus we say that the theory is stronger and stronger. The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in the history of science ... not because of one experiment or observation, but because of *thousands* of experiments and observations! That's why we call it *EVIDENCE*, not "proof."

I usually rely on evidence for the formulation of my beliefs. If the evidence isn't 'proof,' then I'm misunderstanding the word.

Quote:

proof
pro͞of/
noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation More

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I usually rely on evidence for the formulation of my beliefs. If the evidence isn't 'proof,' then I'm misunderstanding the word.

You don't read well, now, do you? I didn't ask for proof! I asked for e v i d e n c e!!!!

But that is the whole point! THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!!

Don't you get that????

Otherwise, show me!!!!

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

I don't have to show you anything! You ******* idiot. I'm not your teacher or anything else, and certainly not your gofer. Not my problem you don't understand science or evolution.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I don't have to show you anything! You ******* idiot. I'm not your teacher or anything else, and certainly not your gofer. Not my problem you don't understand science or evolution.

Ah! Using Ad Hominems now are we? Looks like you are getting very desperate!
I do understand science and I do know that science needs "EVIDENCE'

when I ask you to give some, you fail to deliver and start to yell some Ad Hominems at me. The best thing you could have done is to show some
EVIDENCE!

Not a sign of a mature indivudal, now is it? Wink

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

the idiot is about anything that is counter factual Even .when when you give it evidence it doesn't discuss , it usually runs away by posting some idiotic clip from fringe science.
Remember, youre not here for him if he wont discuss anything. Youre here, rather to show others where this idiot is coming from.

He wont discuss with me so he put me on ignore, In his case it was cowardly because he initially had no answers for my attempts to drag a modicum of fact from his crazy posts.

He doesn't consider the hundreds of transitional fossils as evidence.

He doesn't believe that biogeography is evidence

He wont discuss "knock-out " genes and induced "retro" phylogeny as evidence

He thinks the genome is Intelligent design even though it clearly shows ascendency through simple to complex life forms

He denies the obvious (like the existence of "ring species" where a series of genera in a unique geographic area will show derived species in "ring" around the mother species.

He denies the existence of "Macro evolution" that can actually be seen in real time in the world (like Afar wolves, Kaibab squirrels, finches of galapogos,various species of fish like Anadromous fish in the US
,Cichlids of Africa and several groups of insects.

HE believes that Irreducible complexity is real, even though it been debunked in every occasion it been proposed.

He is an idiot and a coward to boot.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

People like you deserve ad homs; idiots who fail to understand the fundamentals of science.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

People like you deserve ad homs; idiots who fail to understand the fundamentals of science.

I alwasy have to laugh if people who use Ad Hominims tell tthe other one they deserve it!
It is called Rationalizing. And it is kind of a-logical circular reasoning.
(they deserve Ad Hominims because they deserve it, get it? Wink

)

That being said, how exactly do I fail to understand 'science'?
Please explain.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

It's not called "rationalizing." It's fact like science.
People like you wouldn't understand the difference! Mr. Green

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It's not called "rationalizing." It's fact like science.
People like you wouldn't understand the difference

You still are rationalizing,

Now, exactly how and were do I not understand science?

Please explain.

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

By your stupid questions.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know