Real science and real scientists should never make assumptions about anything. It is not science, but projection of belief.

Random is not a proven or even tested by the scientific methodology as even a scientific principle in the physical world of mass, momentum,and interactions between organic life. There is only cause and results or cause and effect.

There is no science without forming an experiment to show your hypothesis. So far no scientist has ever been able to show random in the physical world (no experiments show this). In real science there is only energy, mass, in motion and the reactions on these actions. That can never be random, by the laws of physics: "For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction".
The first law of all science is Cause and Result or Cause and Effect.  Without this there is no science. In order to use science there must be cause and effect.  It is the most fundamental premise of all science.

This law negates any possibility of random in the physical world.  Every event, action, reaction, chemical reaction, mass, momentum, force, and all the sciences on this earth operate ONLY on Cause  and Effect.

Because the human mind is too weak to understand all the causes and effects, they make up religious ideas to calm their human fears on things they can't possible understand, as in all religious dogma.

There can NEVER be random events in the physical world, because once energy is expressed it can only follow the laws of physics or genetics, as it transfers and propagates energy, mass, EMF (all the phenomenon in physics), and genetic information that has the external expression in DNA interactions into the world.

The only possible use of the term random is in pure mathematics, and in electronics where you only have one "thing" electrons and electron clouds (all the same "particle" with noting else) but this does not equate to random in the physical world.

If random were true, then evolution is not true, because it is impossible by the laws of physics to produce any form of evolution that could ever be random. It would have to be only a "genetic" chain reaction to events and that is never random. There is only genetics, and genetics is not random but a result of DNA,information and traits passed into the DNA then adaptation, and that is all. If you were to calculate the permutations of the probability of, for instance 3.2billion DNA base pairs and their "expression" as they form the foundation for human cells it could not happen in hundreds of trillions of years by "random" events.

This is mathematically proven facts. As we say the way the cards are dealt are they way they happened, but each event only happened one way and only one way, based only on what has already transpired. What is stated here cannot be falsified, therefore it remains as well tested and known scientific principles. We need to remove any ambiguous assumptions from genetic science.

Any form of the utter fantasy (in physical phenomenon) term in genetic structures is equal to immediate death.  I have asked for these religious fanatics of Evodelusionism to volunteer for a scientific experiment and we can scramble 100 or so of their active and expressing DNA base pairs.  Of course they have no courage of their belief, because they know I am right and they would die for sure. Or contract serious genetic diseases that result in death.

If you are not willing to risk your life, as I do, for the courage of your convictions, then it has no meaning and it shows you are just a delusional believer in fantasy.

So, if anybody tells you there is random events in the human genome, ask them to have their DNA scrambled to prove this, and see how far their beliefs will take them on that one.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 24^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

Real science and real scientists should never make assumptions about anything. It is not science, but projection of belief. Random is not a proven or even tested by the scientific methodology as even a scientific principle in the physical world of mass, momentum,and interactions between organic life. There is only cause and results or cause and effect. There is no science without forming an experiment to show your hypothesis. So far no scientist has ever been able to show random in the physical world (no experiments show this). In real science there is only energy, mass, in motion and the reactions on these actions. That can never be random, by the laws of physics: "For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction". The first law of all science is Cause and Result or Cause and Effect.  Without this there is no science. In order to use science there must be cause and effect.  It is the most fundamental premise of all science. This law negates any possibility of random in the physical world.  Every event, action, reaction, chemical reaction, mass, momentum, force, and all the sciences on this earth operate ONLY on Cause  and Effect. Because the human mind is too weak to understand all the causes and effects, they make up religious ideas to calm their human fears on things they can't possible understand, as in all religious dogma. There can NEVER be random events in the physical world, because once energy is expressed it can only follow the laws of physics or genetics, as it transfers and propagates energy, mass, EMF (all the phenomenon in physics), and genetic information that has the external expression in DNA interactions into the world. The only possible use of the term random is in pure mathematics, and in electronics where you only have one "thing" electrons and electron clouds (all the same "particle" with noting else) but this does not equate to random in the physical world. If random were true, then evolution is not true, because it is impossible by the laws of physics to produce any form of evolution that could ever be random. It would have to be only a "genetic" chain reaction to events and that is never random. There is only genetics, and genetics is not random but a result of DNA,information and traits passed into the DNA then adaptation, and that is all. If you were to calculate the permutations of the probability of, for instance 3.2billion DNA base pairs and their "expression" as they form the foundation for human cells it could not happen in hundreds of trillions of years by "random" events. This is mathematically proven facts. As we say the way the cards are dealt are they way they happened, but each event only happened one way and only one way, based only on what has already transpired. What is stated here cannot be falsified, therefore it remains as well tested and known scientific principles. We need to remove any ambiguous assumptions from genetic science. Any form of the utter fantasy (in physical phenomenon) term in genetic structures is equal to immediate death.  I have asked for these religious fanatics of Evodelusionism to volunteer for a scientific experiment and we can scramble 100 or so of their active and expressing DNA base pairs.  Of course they have no courage of their belief, because they know I am right and they would die for sure. Or contract serious genetic diseases that result in death. If you are not willing to risk your life, as I do, for the courage of your convictions, then it has no meaning and it shows you are just a delusional believer in fantasy. So, if anybody tells you there is random events in the human genome, ask them to have their DNA scrambled to prove this, and see how far their beliefs will take them on that one.

Same arguments that have been proven wrong over and over again.  But tell me WHY can't you believe it?  WHO will punish you if you do?  HUH?

AGain, you have failed to even flip a coin.  I wonder why?  Is it because of the reality it will reveal.

Remember, you if you FAIL to flip a coin and recognize that a 'heads/tails' outcome is random between the two.......then of course you can deny that random exists.  But sadly, it does not make you right, it only shows that you are unwilling to do the experiment in order to learn!

We know the outcomes are random because if you flip the coin tens times, you might end up with 5 tails and 5 heads.  If you flip the coin ten more times, you might end up with 4 heads and 6 tails.  And if you do it again, you might end up with 4 tails and 6 heads.  The outcome is RANDOM no matter how you try to get around it!

But for some reason, you are too scared to believe this simple, rudimentary explanation.  WATCH, I bet you can't, even though you CANT prove me wrong!  WATCH!

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 24^th, 2010 at 12:18pm:

AGain, you have failed to even flip a coin.  I wonder why?  Is it because of the reality it will reveal. Remember, you if you FAIL to flip a coin and recognize that a 'heads/tails' outcome is random between the two.......then of course you can deny that random exists.  But sadly, it does not make you right, it only shows that you are unwilling to do the experiment in order to learn! We know the outcomes are random because if you flip the coin tens times, you might end up with 5 tails and 5 heads.  If you flip the coin ten more times, you might end up with 4 heads and 6 tails.  And if you do it again, you might end up with 4 tails and 6 heads.  The outcome is RANDOM no matter how you try to get around it! But for some reason, you are too scared to believe this simple, rudimentary explanation.  WATCH, I bet you can't, even though you CANT prove me wrong!  WATCH!

I am fearless about showing you the truth. That is why I have been able to withstand the death threats, and all the attempted humiliation that seems to work on you.

Peer pressure, the need for a degree in college, and trying to impress people or just wanting to conform, has never been a reason to abandon the truth. But for weak people it is.

You are very low IQ if you don't understand that a coin toss is cause and effect and depends totally on the laws of physics.  I lose patience with people who seem to be stuck groveling around in delusional beliefs and intellectual darkness.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

There is no random in the physical world.  It is because you seem to be feeble, slow, weak minded and can't envision more than one event at a time, is no excuse for your ignorant statements.

You are too ignorant of science to even be on here. And any one who thinks a coin toss is random, is just to ignorant of science to be in any class that I would teach.

Cause and Effect is what all science works on, you are too weak and feeble minded to see all the causes fast enough, nor can you make the calculations fast enough to show all the physics involved in a "simple" coin toss.  Because it is not simple.

The educational system is not even in the same league as I am in. That is why people call me the "teachers teacher".

I already showed you all of the possible causes for a coin to come up heads or tails.  You are also to lazy to read this forum. 

Here it is again, and ideas on how you would set up the experiment. I am sure that anyone with more than a room temperature IQ could set up this test.

From the instant in time the coin is flipped you can predict the outcome.

1/ Set up several high speed cameras to photograph at least 1/1000 to 1/2000 exposure of a second per frame and at least 1000 frames per second.  You can use this data to make your calculations.

2/ Have the coin analyzed for mass and shape to a precision of 1/10,000 of an inch.

3/Measure all the matnetic forces in the room and apply that to where the coin is being tossed.

4/ Measure all the gravitational forces in the room.

5/ Using all the data you can think of, even the chemistry of the air, and apply physics and math to the coin toss, and you will be correct 100% of the time.

This is because there is no random. There is only the laws of physics and that means CAUSE AND RESULT.

If you are too stupid to realize that all of science, including your dumb ass theory rides on cause and effects, then you are not capable of being a scientists.

If you believe in random and cause and effect, you are technically insane, because one must be a delusion, as both thoughts negate one another. If one is true the other is not.

How can you miss that?

If you don't believe in cause and effect then you have no scientific intelligence.  You are just a parrot of nonsense that you really don't understand even on a superficial level.

Just like when you force particles to hit purified uranium and it breaks the atomic structures into pure energy, is proven beyond all doubt.

If you are not aware that these are laws of physics that always work under the conditions at which they always work the same, then you have been trained out of reason and awareness of science laws.

When Neuton came up with his ideas, he had not allowed for conditions other than which he was testing.  If he was alive today, I assure you that he would adjust these laws to fit alternative conditions in which they always work.

Just like the coin toss scientific experiment in which you can predict the results from the instant of the thumb lifting the coin. as long as you account for all the "causes and "effects" on the coin.

The human mind is not capable of understanding all the effects on a metal coin at one instant, so they find imperfections and account for that as "random" (a religious concept of magic and mystical causes), because of their feeble minds.  When you can account for every possible energy, mass, momentum, force, and every subtle force on the experiment, including you standing there and having an effect on the experiment, then you will see what real science is. At any one instant, just in a car engine there are thousands of interactions taking place. Humans would call that random, if they could.

Simply because you do not understand absolutes and are just listening to other weak humans and believing them, is not going to help you to get beyond the limitations they inflict on your mind. The key to creative reason and objective thought is to stop putting human emotional mental garbage beliefs on reality.

You should never believe anyone and keep your mind only accepting things that have absolute evidence.

There is nothing wrong with entertaining thoughts, but if you believe them without ultimate and complete follow through, then you will be limiting your mind.

[quote=GoodScienceForYou]I am fearless about showing you the truth. [/quote]

Woah woah! You mean you posses the ability to spread out random outlandish material that's controversial to science? ON THE INTERNETZ NO LESS!! I never heard of ANYBODY with these kind of balls before; YOU sir, are the embodiment of courage!



Quote:

That is why I have been able to withstand the death threats, and all the attempted humiliation that seems to work on you.

Death threats my foot. If we were to believe anybody who comes crying to strangers that he got a death threat then the world would be saturated with prisons. At best some 12 year old told you to "DIAGF" (die in a grease fire) or some crap like that and you perceived that as a death threat? Seriously who would want to threaten some 60 year old dude who doesn't even understand the concepts he's preaching against?

I'm waiting to see if this post passes because last time I tried to comment on a youtube video of yours you had a filter turned on.

Hmm there's no edit function so I guess I'll have to double post.

[quote=GoodScienceForYou]You are very low IQ if you don't understand that a coin toss is cause and effect and depends totally on the laws of physics.  I lose patience with people who seem to be stuck groveling around in delusional beliefs and intellectual darkness.[/quote]

Of course It's based on cause and effect but the outcome can't be predicted. You can calculate the amount of force you need to push the coin and where on the coin do you need to apply said force and what's the air friction going to be - but even so you can't predict accurately the side it's gonna fall on. All you can hope to do is assign a probability to each scenario.

You're confusing the term "random" with something outside of the realm of science. By this logic the electrons in an atom aren't real because they behave in a random fashion and their exact position can't be predicted.

Slacker wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 6:15am:

[quote=GoodScienceForYou]I am fearless about showing you the truth.

Woah woah! You mean you posses the ability to spread out random outlandish material that's controversial to science? ON THE INTERNETZ NO LESS!! I never heard of ANYBODY with these kind of balls before; YOU sir, are the embodiment of courage!



Quote:

That is why I have been able to withstand the death threats, and all the attempted humiliation that seems to work on you.

Death threats my foot. If we were to believe anybody who comes crying to strangers that he got a death threat then the world would be saturated with prisons. At best some 12 year old told you to "DIAGF" (die in a grease fire) or some crap like that and you perceived that as a death threat? Seriously who would want to threaten some 60 year old dude who doesn't even understand the concepts he's preaching against?

I'm waiting to see if this post passes because last time I tried to comment on a youtube video of yours you had a filter turned on.[/quote]


I really think you need to take a breath and just read what is on here.  If you ever want to know why you are so limited, it is because of the limits imposed on your mind.  You allowed this to happen. I have not. 

My advice is to take advantage of this, but in order to do so, you must have some remaining of that person with the mind who existed before the brainwashing.

When you accept logical fallacies, because it is convenient, and the people who impose this crap on your mind seem like they know what they are talking about, is only a sign of your inability to guard your intellect from illogical crap.

Slacker wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 6:34am:

Hmm there's no edit function so I guess I'll have to double post. [quote=GoodScienceForYou]You are very low IQ if you don't understand that a coin toss is cause and effect and depends totally on the laws of physics.  I lose patience with people who seem to be stuck groveling around in delusional beliefs and intellectual darkness.

Of course It's based on cause and effect but the outcome can't be predicted. You can calculate the amount of force you need to push the coin and where on the coin do you need to apply said force and what's the air friction going to be - but even so you can't predict accurately the side it's gonna fall on. All you can hope to do is assign a probability to each scenario.

You're confusing the term "random" with something outside of the realm of science. By this logic the electrons in an atom aren't real because they behave in a random fashion and their exact position can't be predicted.

[/quote]

It is because the human mind is so weak and frail that it is unable to think of more than 100 events taking place at one time. I used to be able to do that and come to conclusions about the effects of each event on the other 99.  I used to be able to concentrate for over three hours solid, non stop on a problem like that, but I am considered to be a genius.

Most people can barely concentrate for five minutes on one thing.

What you consider as "apparent random" or "pseudo random" is not random. As long as there is a cause for every movement of energy or mass or even thoughts, there is no random.

The coin toss is easier to predict than many things. All you have to do is set up the experiment to study all the causes and effects on the coin and you will have it.

I am sorry that this is so far over your ability to think.

And... Thanks for coming over. Take some time to read the posts on here.  Really read them and you will benefit greatly from it.
If you just react like most people who have succumbed to popular beliefs, then you get nothing.  That is your choice.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 10:39pm:

I really think you need to take a breath and just read what is on here.  If you ever want to know why you are so limited, it is because of the limits imposed on your mind.  You allowed this to happen. I have not.  My advice is to take advantage of this, but in order to do so, you must have some remaining of that person with the mind who existed before the brainwashing.

The only brainwashing going on is here is you trying to convince people to forego their common sense in order to make room for your own brainwashing. I pity anyone who takes you in the least bit seriously.


Quote:

When you accept logical fallacies, because it is convenient, and the people who impose this crap on your mind seem like they know what they are talking about, is only a sign of your inability to guard your intellect from illogical crap.

Correct. Which is why I'm not very impressed with your pseudo science.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 10:47pm:

It is because the human mind is so weak and frail that it is unable to think of more than 100 events taking place at one time. I used to be able to do that and come to conclusions about the effects of each event on the other 99.  I used to be able to concentrate for over three hours solid, non stop on a problem like that, but I am considered to be a genius. Most people can barely concentrate for five minutes on one thing.

There you go with the I'm a genius routine again. Why would it mater to anyone how smart you are, especially when you go telling us that we shouldn't submit to any figure of authority? So we shouldn't believe the real scientists just because they're smart but we should instead believe you because YOU're smart?

Yeah, just as I said in the other comment, you're not really interested in getting people to think for themselves, you just want them to think whatever you think.


Quote:

What you consider as "apparent random" or "pseudo random" is not random. As long as there is a cause for every movement of energy or mass or even thoughts, there is no random.

Apparent random-shmandom. And exactly by which criteria have you determined that mutations would have to happen in an absolute-random fashion, instead of an apparent random one? Maybe random in the case of these mutations is the same kind of random like when you shuffle a deck of cards.


Quote:

The coin toss is easier to predict than many things. All you have to do is set up the experiment to study all the causes and effects on the coin and you will have it.

Don't get hung up on the coin. How about a 50-side dice?


Quote:

I am sorry that this is so far over your ability to think.

Oh brother ::)

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 24^th, 2010 at 5:01pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 24th, 2010 at 12:18pm: But for some reason, you are too scared to believe this simple, rudimentary explanation.  WATCH, I bet you can't, even though you CANT prove me wrong!  WATCH! I am fearless about showing you the truth.

WHAT?

And the TRUTH about the outcome of the coin toss is ONLY that it could land or heads or tails.  Since either of these is a possibility, predicting the outcome in advance and only being right SOME of the time, proves the outcome is random(either heads or tails)...........depending on the physics that will be applied.

AGain, you are letting your emotions get in the way of what you CAN believe!

SEE how angry you get? This proves you are too emotional about it!   Take a deep breath.  Calm down. 

I don't get angry, this is what I do to help you.  It is up to you to wake up and understand.

There are no magical causes, nor mystical creatures in science.
These things are religious in nature.

If you want to continue with relgious beliefs that is your problem not mine.

All I can do is tell you what is real from what is not.  It is up to you to get past your brainwashing and prejudices not based in reality.

I do pity anyone who believes in magical processes, mystical ideas.  I pity you. MajorAthiest, and Slacker.

You can do so much better than this crap.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 2:18pm:

I don't get angry, this is what I do to help you.  It is up to you to wake up and understand. There are no magical causes, nor mystical creatures in science. These things are religious in nature. If you want to continue with relgious beliefs that is your problem not mine. All I can do is tell you what is real from what is not.  It is up to you to get past your brainwashing and prejudices not based in reality. I do pity anyone who believes in magical processes, mystical ideas.  I pity you. MajorAthiest, and Slacker. You can do so much better than this crap.

Again, not performing the experiment does not mean you are right!

Predict either heads or tails, flip the coin 50 times, record your results and when you realize that you were NOT 100% accurate.......its because the outcome is random and dependent upon the physics applied during said tosses!


Prove me wrong or you have no reason to not believe me!

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 4:53pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 2:18pm: I don't get angry, this is what I do to help you.  It is up to you to wake up and understand. There are no magical causes, nor mystical creatures in science. These things are religious in nature. If you want to continue with relgious beliefs that is your problem not mine. All I can do is tell you what is real from what is not.  It is up to you to get past your brainwashing and prejudices not based in reality. I do pity anyone who believes in magical processes, mystical ideas.  I pity you. MajorAthiest, and Slacker. You can do so much better than this crap. Again, not performing the experiment does not mean you are right! Predict either heads or tails, flip the coin 50 times, record your results and when you realize that you were NOT 100% accurate.......its because the outcome is random and dependent upon the physics applied during said tosses! Prove me wrong or you have no reason to not believe me!

I might as well be communicating with a frog.  You have no understanding of physics.

REPEAT;  There are no magical or mystical reasons in science.  By having a religious belief in "random" you negate yourself.

Do you also believe in "luck"?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 6:52pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 4:53pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 2:18pm: I don't get angry, this is what I do to help you.  It is up to you to wake up and understand. There are no magical causes, nor mystical creatures in science. These things are religious in nature. If you want to continue with relgious beliefs that is your problem not mine. All I can do is tell you what is real from what is not.  It is up to you to get past your brainwashing and prejudices not based in reality. I do pity anyone who believes in magical processes, mystical ideas.  I pity you. MajorAthiest, and Slacker. You can do so much better than this crap. Again, not performing the experiment does not mean you are right! Predict either heads or tails, flip the coin 50 times, record your results and when you realize that you were NOT 100% accurate.......its because the outcome is random and dependent upon the physics applied during said tosses! Prove me wrong or you have no reason to not believe me! I might as well be communicating with a frog.  You have no understanding of physics. REPEAT;  There are no magical or mystical reasons in science.  By having a religious belief in "random" you negate yourself. Do you also believe in "luck"?

WHAHA!  I never said magical/mystical processes were a part of physics.

Sigh, I am starting to come to the conclusion that you are not as bright as you claim.

You CANT afford a coin to perform an experiment, or if you did it, you CANT understand that since you could not predict the outcome 100% of the time, it PROVES the outcome is random.

Sorry you are having a hard time believing this.  Are you sure you are smart.  Smart people should be able to understand rudimentary arguments and enough so that they shouldn't have to PUT WORDS INTO people's mouths. LMAO!

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 6:50am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 6:52pm: MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 4:53pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 2:18pm: I don't get angry, this is what I do to help you.  It is up to you to wake up and understand. There are no magical causes, nor mystical creatures in science. These things are religious in nature. If you want to continue with relgious beliefs that is your problem not mine. All I can do is tell you what is real from what is not.  It is up to you to get past your brainwashing and prejudices not based in reality. I do pity anyone who believes in magical processes, mystical ideas.  I pity you. MajorAthiest, and Slacker. You can do so much better than this crap. Again, not performing the experiment does not mean you are right! Predict either heads or tails, flip the coin 50 times, record your results and when you realize that you were NOT 100% accurate.......its because the outcome is random and dependent upon the physics applied during said tosses! Prove me wrong or you have no reason to not believe me! I might as well be communicating with a frog.  You have no understanding of physics. REPEAT;  There are no magical or mystical reasons in science.  By having a religious belief in "random" you negate yourself. Do you also believe in "luck"? WHAHA!  I never said magical/mystical processes were a part of physics. Sigh, I am starting to come to the conclusion that you are not as bright as you claim. You CANT afford a coin to perform an experiment, or if you did it, you CANT understand that since you could not predict the outcome 100% of the time, it PROVES the outcome is random. Sorry you are having a hard time believing this.  Are you sure you are smart.  Smart people should be able to understand rudimentary arguments and enough so that they shouldn't have to PUT WORDS INTO people's mouths. LMAO!

How can you ASSUME you are communicating with a frog, when it is YOU that can't understand what we are trying to teach you??? 

In other words, it should be ME that is assuming a dialogue with a frog!  LMAO! 

But keep trying to prove me wrong, when you realize you cant..............you will just have to change your beliefs and accept the punishment that your very own God promises!  Sorry that you are FORCED into not believing!

Listen to me this has nothing to do with God,but with your magical beliefs in random.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
Do you believe in ghosts?
Do you believe in goblins?

You can still be a religious atheist and believe in things at your church, but not in biology.

There are no magical causes nor magical effects. 
Random has no basis in science.  It might be something in another universe, but not here.

Flipping a coin is not a random act.  It involves most of the laws of physics. Because YOU are too stupid to understand what is going on, does not change the truth in this matter.

It is your ignorance of what is taking place that is your problem.

Random violates the foundations of science.

Your need to make it real is your problem, just like any religious belief.

I want to see all religious nonsense removed from science.

What you think is happening in a coin toss is not.  Your atheist, religious needs for this crap to be real is your problem.

I  pity you, for being so lost.

Do you think there are "random mutations" between the parent and the child?

Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

Do you believe in Santa Claus?

Do you believe in luck?

Do you believe in flying saucers?

Please answer this. Yes or no!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 8:58am:

Listen to me this has nothing to do with God,but with your magical beliefs in random. Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Do you believe in ghosts? Do you believe in goblins? You can still be a religious atheist and believe in things at your church, but not in biology. There are no magical causes nor magical effects.  Random has no basis in science.  It might be something in another universe, but not here. Flipping a coin is not a random act.  It involves most of the laws of physics. Because YOU are too stupid to understand what is going on, does not change the truth in this matter. It is your ignorance of what is taking place that is your problem. Random violates the foundations of science. Your need to make it real is your problem, just like any religious belief. I want to see all religious nonsense removed from science. What you think is happening in a coin toss is not.  Your atheist, religious needs for this crap to be real is your problem. I  pity you, for being so lost.

AGain, this has nothing to do with MY MAGICAL beliefs, since I hold no magical beliefs. Stop lying to fit your hate filled agenda.  It really does not make yourself look like the the 'teachers teacher'.  Besides, where are all your students?

Until you prove me wrong, you have no reason to not believe me.  I am REALLY starting to pity you!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 8:58am:

Listen to me this has nothing to do with God,but with your magical beliefs in random. Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Do you believe in ghosts? Do you believe in goblins? You can still be a religious atheist and believe in things at your church, but not in biology. There are no magical causes nor magical effects.  Random has no basis in science.  It might be something in another universe, but not here. Flipping a coin is not a random act.

I NEVER said it was a random act. And you pity me? LMAO.  I am not the one that is TWISTING everything that is said just so I don't have to believe.  I very CLEARLY said the outcome was random, not the actual flipping of a coin.  The OUTCOME of the flipping of the coin is random, since you don't know the physics that may be applied during said flip!

Sigh, I can see you are unwilling to do the experiment for some strange reason!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 9:10am:

Do you think there are "random mutations" between the parent and the child? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe in luck? Do you believe in flying saucers? Please answer this. Yes or no!

Why would I believe in the tooth fairy, when any time evidence is revealed that the tooth fairy exists(money under my pillow)..........the evidence is faulty and does not really show that a fairy exists????  So, NO!

Why would I believe in Santa, when the presents under the tree does not really provide any reason to believe Santa exists? So, NO!

Why would I believe in saucers, when the pictures produced of said saucers, cannot be shown to actually represent a Saucer or Alien spaceship?  So, NO!




BUT, BUT, BUT I have a huge reason to believe that LUCK exists.  I have no reason to believe the tooth fairy, santa, or saucers exist. Fairies, Santa, Saucers are all defined by their physical, material deeds.

In other words, material things are used to prove/show evidence of Santa, Fairies, Saucers.  Presents under a tree, money under a pillow, pictures of saucers.

But when it comes to Luck, Random, Chaos, darkness, sickness..........these are all concepts that we used to define the lack of prediction with 100% accuracy, lack of 100% order, lack of 100% light, and lack of 100% health.

These things are not entities, but a representation of the LACK OF the entity, but they exist within the perceptive realm.  They exist because there is no 100% health, 100% light, 100% accuracy, 100% order, 100% perfection.

Things are ONLY perceived as perfectly accurate, healthy, ordered, when there is no way to know exactly what perfect is..........subjectively.  Subjective perfection is as elusive as subjective truth.  Only objective perfection exists, in as much as objective truth exists.

The object is only perfect within the limitations imposed upon it, during any given time or over the course of time.  But a removal of these limitations, during any point in time, may reveal a completely different perfection......objectively!

Ok, I digressed, but I also felt it was necessary.  Back to LUCK........The reason I believe LUCK exists is because, when concerning the lottery, no one can predict the numbers that will fall 100% of the time.  This proves that the winner of the lottery is random, based on the physics that are applied.  We can't predict the winner; therefore the person that wins is completely random; UNPREDICTABLE.

Prove me wrong by predicting not on the numbers of the next local megamillion lottery, but I would like for you to predict the actual winner.  When you are wrong the first time, I am going to have to laugh, because this will prove that the reason you could not predict the numbers or winners is because it is random.  Whether you CAN believe it or not!


AND, AND, AND I have a huge reason to believe that mutations can happen between the replication/duplication of DNA from parent to child, and I have a huge reason to believe these mutations are just as random as the lottery, since the outcome cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy!





NOW my turn and let's test your fairness.  I answer your questions, let's see if you can answer mine.

Tell me WHY or WHAT you don't believe about evolution?  And don't just say there are no transitional fossils. Dont just say random mutations of DNA don't occur or don't produce change.

Explain what it is about the DNA that gives you no reason to believe in change over time.
Explain what it is about the transitional fossils that gives you reason to believe they are not transitional.

How can a fossil that has both reptile and mammal organs, traits, characteristics, etc............NOT be a possible transition of reptile to mammal? Explain why you can't believe this.

And my last question..........will you get punished or praised for your beliefs?  The reason why I ask is that you are adamantly against evolution, but you CANT show 1 thing that would give rise to this lack of belief.

You have failed to show 1 piece of evidence that supports evolution is wrong.  All you have done is show that you are more willing to TWIST things just so you don't have to believe..........for some strange reason!

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 9:14am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 9:10am: Do you think there are "random mutations" between the parent and the child? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe in luck? Do you believe in flying saucers? Please answer this. Yes or no! Why would I believe in the tooth fairy, when any time evidence is revealed that the tooth fairy exists(money under my pillow)..........the evidence is faulty and does not really show that a fairy exists????  So, NO! Why would I believe in Santa, when the presents under the tree does not really provide any reason to believe Santa exists? So, NO! Why would I believe in saucers, when the pictures produced of said saucers, cannot be shown to actually represent a Saucer or Alien spaceship?  So, NO! BUT, BUT, BUT I have a huge reason to believe that LUCK exists.  I have no reason to believe the tooth fairy, santa, or saucers exist. Fairies, Santa, Saucers are all defined by their physical, material deeds. In other words, material things are used to prove/show evidence of Santa, Fairies, Saucers.  Presents under a tree, money under a pillow, pictures of saucers. But when it comes to Luck, Random, Chaos, darkness, sickness..........these are all concepts that we used to define the lack of prediction with 100% accuracy, lack of 100% order, lack of 100% light, and lack of 100% health. These things are not entities, but a representation of the LACK OF the entity, but they exist within the perceptive realm.  They exist because there is no 100% health, 100% light, 100% accuracy, 100% order, 100% perfection. Things are ONLY perceived as perfectly accurate, healthy, ordered, when there is no way to know exactly what perfect is..........subjectively.  Subjective perfection is as elusive as subjective truth.  Only objective perfection exists, in as much as objective truth exists. The object is only perfect within the limitations imposed upon it, during any given time or over the course of time.  But a removal of these limitations, during any point in time, may reveal a completely different perfection......objectively! Ok, I digressed, but I also felt it was necessary.  Back to LUCK........The reason I believe LUCK exists is because, when concerning the lottery, no one can predict the numbers that will fall 100% of the time.  This proves that the winner of the lottery is random, based on the physics that are applied.  We can't predict the winner; therefore the person that wins is completely random; UNPREDICTABLE. Prove me wrong by predicting not on the numbers of the next local megamillion lottery, but I would like for you to predict the actual winner.  When you are wrong the first time, I am going to have to laugh, because this will prove that the reason you could not predict the numbers or winners is because it is random.  Whether you CAN believe it or not! AND, AND, AND I have a huge reason to believe that mutations can happen between the replication/duplication of DNA from parent to child, and I have a huge reason to believe these mutations are just as random as the lottery, since the outcome cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy! NOW my turn and let's test your fairness.  I answer your questions, let's see if you can answer mine. Tell me WHY or WHAT you don't believe about evolution?  And don't just say there are no transitional fossils. Dont just say random mutations of DNA don't occur or don't produce change. Explain what it is about the DNA that gives you no reason to believe in change over time. Explain what it is about the transitional fossils that gives you reason to believe they are not transitional. How can a fossil that has both reptile and mammal organs, traits, characteristics, etc............NOT be a possible transition of reptile to mammal? Explain why you can't believe this. And my last question..........will you get punished or praised for your beliefs?  The reason why I ask is that you are adamantly against evolution, but you CANT show 1 thing that would give rise to this lack of belief. You have failed to show 1 piece of evidence that supports evolution is wrong.  All you have done is show that you are more willing to TWIST things just so you don't have to believe..........for some strange reason!

You are not rational and you believe in magical causes.  That is a pretty much delusional conditioning of your mind.

There is no evidence of luck.  If you were to have any objective awareness at all, you would know this.

Circumstances, events, that lead things to happen are not luck.

It is just delusional nonsense.

I find it funnier than hell that you atheists are superstitious and  believe in luck and other irrational crap, and for some reason you think that evoldelusion validates your hate of god and your emotional needs to justify your weakness caused by your human compulsions and desires?

You are messed up in the head because you believe in magical thinking and mystical (religious) causes.  You believe in delusional nonsense like random?  You need to find out why.  You need to understand yourself first.

You need to be honest with yourself.

Only a ignorant fool, who is incapable of reasoning would believe in random.

Because you and other humans are so feeble minded that you can't see the causes is not an excuse for your delusional beliefs.

Luck is a delusional belief that has no basis in science.

Albert Einstein:
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

There are no magical causes in the entire universe. Only week and feeble minded humans, who are incapable of logic believe in this magical nonsense.

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 9:14am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 9:10am: Do you think there are "random mutations" between the parent and the child? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe in luck? Do you believe in flying saucers? Please answer this. Yes or no! Why would I believe in the tooth fairy, when any time evidence is revealed that the tooth fairy exists(money under my pillow)..........the evidence is faulty and does not really show that a fairy exists????  So, NO! Why would I believe in Santa, when the presents under the tree does not really provide any reason to believe Santa exists? So, NO! Why would I believe in saucers, when the pictures produced of said saucers, cannot be shown to actually represent a Saucer or Alien spaceship?  So, NO! BUT, BUT, BUT I have a huge reason to believe that LUCK exists.  I have no reason to believe the tooth fairy, santa, or saucers exist. Fairies, Santa, Saucers are all defined by their physical, material deeds. In other words, material things are used to prove/show evidence of Santa, Fairies, Saucers.  Presents under a tree, money under a pillow, pictures of saucers. But when it comes to Luck, Random, Chaos, darkness, sickness..........these are all concepts that we used to define the lack of prediction with 100% accuracy, lack of 100% order, lack of 100% light, and lack of 100% health. These things are not entities, but a representation of the LACK OF the entity, but they exist within the perceptive realm.  They exist because there is no 100% health, 100% light, 100% accuracy, 100% order, 100% perfection. Things are ONLY perceived as perfectly accurate, healthy, ordered, when there is no way to know exactly what perfect is..........subjectively.  Subjective perfection is as elusive as subjective truth.  Only objective perfection exists, in as much as objective truth exists. The object is only perfect within the limitations imposed upon it, during any given time or over the course of time.  But a removal of these limitations, during any point in time, may reveal a completely different perfection......objectively! Ok, I digressed, but I also felt it was necessary.  Back to LUCK........The reason I believe LUCK exists is because, when concerning the lottery, no one can predict the numbers that will fall 100% of the time.  This proves that the winner of the lottery is random, based on the physics that are applied.  We can't predict the winner; therefore the person that wins is completely random; UNPREDICTABLE. Prove me wrong by predicting not on the numbers of the next local megamillion lottery, but I would like for you to predict the actual winner.  When you are wrong the first time, I am going to have to laugh, because this will prove that the reason you could not predict the numbers or winners is because it is random.  Whether you CAN believe it or not! AND, AND, AND I have a huge reason to believe that mutations can happen between the replication/duplication of DNA from parent to child, and I have a huge reason to believe these mutations are just as random as the lottery, since the outcome cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy! NOW my turn and let's test your fairness.  I answer your questions, let's see if you can answer mine. Tell me WHY or WHAT you don't believe about evolution?  And don't just say there are no transitional fossils. Dont just say random mutations of DNA don't occur or don't produce change. Explain what it is about the DNA that gives you no reason to believe in change over time. Explain what it is about the transitional fossils that gives you reason to believe they are not transitional. How can a fossil that has both reptile and mammal organs, traits, characteristics, etc............NOT be a possible transition of reptile to mammal? Explain why you can't believe this. And my last question..........will you get punished or praised for your beliefs?  The reason why I ask is that you are adamantly against evolution, but you CANT show 1 thing that would give rise to this lack of belief. You have failed to show 1 piece of evidence that supports evolution is wrong.  All you have done is show that you are more willing to TWIST things just so you don't have to believe..........for some strange reason!

You need to realize that I never allowed any forced beliefs in my life to effect me.  I am much stronger than you.

You seem to think that you must believe in something. That is a false position to begin with.  You don't have to believe in anything.

If you start from the position of protecting your intelligence from human garbage beliefs, then you could never believe in unproven illogical nonsense such as Evodelusionism.

You are very low IQ if you don't understand that a coin toss is cause and effect and depends totally on the laws of physics.  I lose patience with people who seem to be stuck groveling around in delusional beliefs and intellectual darkness.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

IT is extremely difficult for me to think that any human can be so ignorant of the laws of science and believe in magical nonsense.

If you want to understand why Evodelusion is a religion, then you need to read all of the posts on this site.  If you don't understand what evidence is and what I demand as evidence and what any sane person would demand as evidence, then you are just brainwashed and a helpless, hopeless person.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 8:58am:

Listen to me this has nothing to do with God,but with your magical beliefs in random.

You can either listen or you can turn your head to what I have said and proved, just so you don't have to believe me.  It really comes down to how honest you can be!

I have proven that the outcome of a coin flip is random between heads or tails, and is dependent upon the physics involved during said flip. If you CANT prove this wrong, then I have no reason to change my beliefs!  If you CANT prove this wrong, YOU have no reason to not believe me!

I have also proved that just because we can't predict the outcome 100% of the time, does not mean some magical processes are involved. I have told you time and time again that it is dependent upon the physics involved, not some magical processes............especially since you support the PHYSICS in the world.

I have worded it in a way that has caused you quite a conundrum of problems..........logically and semantically.

But you lie again!  Why?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 7:32pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 28th, 2010 at 9:14am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 9:10am: Do you think there are "random mutations" between the parent and the child? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe in luck? Do you believe in flying saucers? Please answer this. Yes or no! Why would I believe in the tooth fairy, when any time evidence is revealed that the tooth fairy exists(money under my pillow)..........the evidence is faulty and does not really show that a fairy exists????  So, NO! Why would I believe in Santa, when the presents under the tree does not really provide any reason to believe Santa exists? So, NO! Why would I believe in saucers, when the pictures produced of said saucers, cannot be shown to actually represent a Saucer or Alien spaceship?  So, NO! BUT, BUT, BUT I have a huge reason to believe that LUCK exists.  I have no reason to believe the tooth fairy, santa, or saucers exist. Fairies, Santa, Saucers are all defined by their physical, material deeds. In other words, material things are used to prove/show evidence of Santa, Fairies, Saucers.  Presents under a tree, money under a pillow, pictures of saucers. But when it comes to Luck, Random, Chaos, darkness, sickness..........these are all concepts that we used to define the lack of prediction with 100% accuracy, lack of 100% order, lack of 100% light, and lack of 100% health. These things are not entities, but a representation of the LACK OF the entity, but they exist within the perceptive realm.  They exist because there is no 100% health, 100% light, 100% accuracy, 100% order, 100% perfection. Things are ONLY perceived as perfectly accurate, healthy, ordered, when there is no way to know exactly what perfect is..........subjectively.  Subjective perfection is as elusive as subjective truth.  Only objective perfection exists, in as much as objective truth exists. The object is only perfect within the limitations imposed upon it, during any given time or over the course of time.  But a removal of these limitations, during any point in time, may reveal a completely different perfection......objectively! Ok, I digressed, but I also felt it was necessary.  Back to LUCK........The reason I believe LUCK exists is because, when concerning the lottery, no one can predict the numbers that will fall 100% of the time.  This proves that the winner of the lottery is random, based on the physics that are applied.  We can't predict the winner; therefore the person that wins is completely random; UNPREDICTABLE. Prove me wrong by predicting not on the numbers of the next local megamillion lottery, but I would like for you to predict the actual winner.  When you are wrong the first time, I am going to have to laugh, because this will prove that the reason you could not predict the numbers or winners is because it is random.  Whether you CAN believe it or not! AND, AND, AND I have a huge reason to believe that mutations can happen between the replication/duplication of DNA from parent to child, and I have a huge reason to believe these mutations are just as random as the lottery, since the outcome cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy! NOW my turn and let's test your fairness.  I answer your questions, let's see if you can answer mine. Tell me WHY or WHAT you don't believe about evolution?  And don't just say there are no transitional fossils. Dont just say random mutations of DNA don't occur or don't produce change. Explain what it is about the DNA that gives you no reason to believe in change over time. Explain what it is about the transitional fossils that gives you reason to believe they are not transitional. How can a fossil that has both reptile and mammal organs, traits, characteristics, etc............NOT be a possible transition of reptile to mammal? Explain why you can't believe this. And my last question..........will you get punished or praised for your beliefs?  The reason why I ask is that you are adamantly against evolution, but you CANT show 1 thing that would give rise to this lack of belief. You have failed to show 1 piece of evidence that supports evolution is wrong.  All you have done is show that you are more willing to TWIST things just so you don't have to believe..........for some strange reason! You are not rational and you believe in magical causes.

REALLY?  Even though I have stated MANY times that the outcome of the coin flip is due to physics.

So, is physics some sort of magic???
Does magic cause physics then?

Hmmmmmm, I claim that the outcome is due to physics, but YET you turn around and lie to my face and say that I believe the outcome is due to magical causes?  WOW!


WHO are you trying to fool?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 7:32pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 28th, 2010 at 9:14am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 9:10am: Do you think there are "random mutations" between the parent and the child? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe in luck? Do you believe in flying saucers? Please answer this. Yes or no! Why would I believe in the tooth fairy, when any time evidence is revealed that the tooth fairy exists(money under my pillow)..........the evidence is faulty and does not really show that a fairy exists????  So, NO! Why would I believe in Santa, when the presents under the tree does not really provide any reason to believe Santa exists? So, NO! Why would I believe in saucers, when the pictures produced of said saucers, cannot be shown to actually represent a Saucer or Alien spaceship?  So, NO! BUT, BUT, BUT I have a huge reason to believe that LUCK exists.  I have no reason to believe the tooth fairy, santa, or saucers exist. Fairies, Santa, Saucers are all defined by their physical, material deeds. In other words, material things are used to prove/show evidence of Santa, Fairies, Saucers.  Presents under a tree, money under a pillow, pictures of saucers. But when it comes to Luck, Random, Chaos, darkness, sickness..........these are all concepts that we used to define the lack of prediction with 100% accuracy, lack of 100% order, lack of 100% light, and lack of 100% health. These things are not entities, but a representation of the LACK OF the entity, but they exist within the perceptive realm.  They exist because there is no 100% health, 100% light, 100% accuracy, 100% order, 100% perfection. Things are ONLY perceived as perfectly accurate, healthy, ordered, when there is no way to know exactly what perfect is..........subjectively.  Subjective perfection is as elusive as subjective truth.  Only objective perfection exists, in as much as objective truth exists. The object is only perfect within the limitations imposed upon it, during any given time or over the course of time.  But a removal of these limitations, during any point in time, may reveal a completely different perfection......objectively! Ok, I digressed, but I also felt it was necessary.  Back to LUCK........The reason I believe LUCK exists is because, when concerning the lottery, no one can predict the numbers that will fall 100% of the time.  This proves that the winner of the lottery is random, based on the physics that are applied.  We can't predict the winner; therefore the person that wins is completely random; UNPREDICTABLE. Prove me wrong by predicting not on the numbers of the next local megamillion lottery, but I would like for you to predict the actual winner.  When you are wrong the first time, I am going to have to laugh, because this will prove that the reason you could not predict the numbers or winners is because it is random.  Whether you CAN believe it or not! AND, AND, AND I have a huge reason to believe that mutations can happen between the replication/duplication of DNA from parent to child, and I have a huge reason to believe these mutations are just as random as the lottery, since the outcome cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy! NOW my turn and let's test your fairness.  I answer your questions, let's see if you can answer mine. Tell me WHY or WHAT you don't believe about evolution?  And don't just say there are no transitional fossils. Dont just say random mutations of DNA don't occur or don't produce change. Explain what it is about the DNA that gives you no reason to believe in change over time. Explain what it is about the transitional fossils that gives you reason to believe they are not transitional. How can a fossil that has both reptile and mammal organs, traits, characteristics, etc............NOT be a possible transition of reptile to mammal? Explain why you can't believe this. And my last question..........will you get punished or praised for your beliefs?  The reason why I ask is that you are adamantly against evolution, but you CANT show 1 thing that would give rise to this lack of belief. You have failed to show 1 piece of evidence that supports evolution is wrong.  All you have done is show that you are more willing to TWIST things just so you don't have to believe..........for some strange reason! You are not rational and you believe in magical causes.  That is a pretty much delusional conditioning of your mind. There is no evidence of luck.  If you were to have any objective awareness at all, you would know this.

The evidence of predictions not being 100% to certain events, produces the concept of LUCK!

The evidence of people holding hands, produces the concept of love.

They BOTH exist. Existence for existence does not have to be limited to physical, right or wrong?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 8:58am:

Listen to me this has nothing to do with God,but with your magical beliefs in random. Random violates the foundations of science. ]

NOPE, not when I proved that you CANT predict the outcome of a coin toss with 100% accuracy.

AGain, failure to actually flip the coin might help you understand, but not flipping the coin will never help you see what we are trying to teach you.

WE ALL PITY YOU!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 7:44pm:

I find it funnier than hell that you atheists are superstitious and  believe in luck and other irrational crap, and for some reason you think that evoldelusion validates your hate of god and your emotional needs to justify your weakness caused by your human compulsions and desires?

WHAHA!  A lack of belief is not hate.

Here let me prove it! LMAO!

I believe in Santa, but I bet you don't.  I believe that Santa is the TRUTH.  This truth is the best, most powerful, all knowing THING that we have.  Whatever this TRUTH says we must obey, for this TRUTH knows more than we do.

Now, since this TRUTH is right, we must make laws to reflect this TRUTH.

The moment you don't like the laws that are made, and the moment you speak up about making laws based on SANTA..............is the moment we call you a hater!!!

Why are you hating SANTA! What did he ever do to you besides bring you presents if you were good?

SEE brother, you are just a HATER of Santa!  You are just filled with HATE!   Or wait, is it just a lack of belief?



So, brother, you can continue to LIE all you want, its really up to you and how honest you can be!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:

Only a ignorant fool, who is incapable of reasoning would believe in random.

Only an ignorant fool will not predict the outcome of a flipped coin, since you are either penniless or incapable of performing tasks that will prove you wrong.

SEE brother, two can play that game and if you want to continue playing that game, it will only make it easy on me.

I really don't want to put forth the effort to prove you wrong, I would only rather just SAY you are wrong just like you do.  This style of debate is so much easier and lacks substance.

But it is you that has reduced to playing dirty!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:

Only a ignorant fool, who is incapable of reasoning would believe in random. Because you and other humans are so feeble minded that you can't see the causes is not an excuse for your delusional beliefs. Luck is a delusional belief that has no basis in science.

Sigh..........either prove me wrong or change your beliefs.

For if you CANT prove me wrong you have no reason to not believe me.   

If you CANT prove me wrong, then what reason do you have for not believing me. HUH?

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 1:14pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 28th, 2010 at 7:52pm: Only a ignorant fool, who is incapable of reasoning would believe in random. Because you and other humans are so feeble minded that you can't see the causes is not an excuse for your delusional beliefs. Luck is a delusional belief that has no basis in science. Sigh..........either prove me wrong or change your beliefs. For if you CANT prove me wrong you have no reason to not believe me.    If you CANT prove me wrong, then what reason do you have for not believing me. HUH?

You present magical causes and mystical creatures in your religion. I don't.

You can only go where the evidence takes you and you cannot apply belief to evidence. 

As soon as you have beliefs you have no credibility.

I pity you. 

You are the one who needs to do the testing.  It is up to you to perform the tasks necessary to prove or disprove.

I clearly state foundational scientific facts that are irrefutable, and you still want to believe in fairy tales.

You are lazy, clear as can be. You rely on others to control your mind. That is really sad. you need to belong to the club of religious believers is pathetic. You march rank and file like a good Nazi who conforms to your fears.

Conforming to other people is a sign of weakness, no matter who they are.

I pity you.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 2:03pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 29th, 2010 at 1:14pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 28th, 2010 at 7:52pm: Only a ignorant fool, who is incapable of reasoning would believe in random. Because you and other humans are so feeble minded that you can't see the causes is not an excuse for your delusional beliefs. Luck is a delusional belief that has no basis in science. Sigh..........either prove me wrong or change your beliefs. For if you CANT prove me wrong you have no reason to not believe me.    If you CANT prove me wrong, then what reason do you have for not believing me. HUH? You present magical causes and mystical creatures in your religion. I don't.

Then you are either stupid or can't read.  Go back and try to understand again.

Oh heck, let's play fill in the blank.

MajorAtheist said that the outcome of the flip is due to _______________________!   Physics or magic?


How many more times must you lie???   I PITY YOU SEVERELY!!!!

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 11:39am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 8:58am: Listen to me this has nothing to do with God,but with your magical beliefs in random. You can either listen or you can turn your head to what I have said and proved, just so you don't have to believe me.  It really comes down to how honest you can be! I have proven that the outcome of a coin flip is random between heads or tails, and is dependent upon the physics involved during said flip.

Sure keep saying that my beliefs are magical, all the while you know that you are lying when you do so!

Still waiting for you to be honest just once!

All of science is cause and effect or cause and result.

There are no magical things such as random.

Are we now agreed?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 8:33am:

All of science is cause and effect or cause and result. There are no magical things such a random. Are we now agreed?

Science is the study of causes and their effects.  Reality IS cause and effect.

Since you did not KNOW of which physical forces were going to be involved in that coin experiment, proven by not being 100% accurate, were the outcomes predictable or unpredictable.  Unpredictable, right?

If they were predictable, then you should have gotten 100% accuracy!
If they were unpredictable, WHICH I KNOW THEY WERE, then the term to used describe unpredictable outcomes is RANDOM.

Outcomes that are 'difficult or impossible to foretell'......is called unpredictable.  Those outcomes; therefore are considered random.  Just like outcomes that are 'easy or possible to foretell'.........is called predictable.  Those outcomes; are considered precise or ordered based on the calculations used to predict.


It doesnt mean that physics are not involved, it is just a term to describe the unpredictable outcomes due to the multitude of physical forces involved.

If we knew, then we could predict 100% accurately. Since we can't predict with 100% accuracy, this proves there are many physics involved that we did not or could not have known or else we would have predicted accurately!!!!!!


AGREED?

I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world.

Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT!

Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are.

When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns.

I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold.

I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science.

There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand.

When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky.
Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well.

I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth.

It is the foundation of free thought.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world. Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT! Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are. When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns. I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold. I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science. There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand. When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky. Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well. I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth. It is the foundation of free thought.

I have explained everything to you.

Sadly, you have failed to prove me wrong. Go back and read and copy/paste an argument/statement that I made and SHOW me where it is wrong.

When you can't do this, you have NO reason to not believe me..........unless you are not smart or you FEAR your God!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.

LOL! That's why I said because we don't know what and how it works, makes the outcome random.......not that the event is random!!

OMG, its like talking to a frog!!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns.

EXACTLY right and I think you finally got it!

So if it is the condition of his muscles that cause those dice to go hot or cold for a while................what if SOME OTHER force plays a role and you did not know about it?

What happens when the outcome is NOT what you predicted? The condition of the muscles or some other force must have changed to effect the outcome.

Since the outcome was different than what you predicted, this is how you know some other force was applied, even though you don't know exactly what force caused the change.

Since you dont know what forced caused the change, the outcome became unpredictable because of this physical force; therefore random between heads or tails.

Goodscience - He means that randomness isn't what many would consider random.. As in a random number between 1 - 10. He is saying that randomness within the universe is based off of an unknown variable. This unknown variable causes us to believe the outcome is unpredictable. Unpredictability equates to a random effect. If the variable is ever changing like the temperature for example, the entire equation would SEEM random simply because of its unpredictable nature. So when physicists and scientists refer to something being random.. they mean that it is currently unpredictable with our current level of technology. Just because something isn't random however, isn't proof of a God. The reason being is that for every attribute that you can apply to God, I could remove the none factors from the equation meaning that God himself is a none factor since there is nothing that God can do that the universe can't do. The universe is VERY conservative. The chances of the universe actually having a divine power behind it is actually an impossibility because of the conservative nature of existence. (What I mean by conservative I do not mean that the universe chose a political party. I mean that the universe doesn't apply variables to the equations that it calculates which take absolutely no effect at all. Also - Two things cannot share the same attributes if they both do the exact same thing. It would cancel out one of the attributes since both aren't needed.)
So in essence - God isn't needed.

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 9:46pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:41pm: I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world. Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT! Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are. When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns. I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold. I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science. There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand. When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky. Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well. I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth. It is the foundation of free thought. I have explained everything to you. Sadly, you have failed to prove me wrong. Go back and read and copy/paste an argument/statement that I made and SHOW me where it is wrong. When you can't do this, you have NO reason to not believe me..........unless you are not smart or you FEAR your God!

You have a f**king rut etched in your mind, and you can't get out of that f**king rut.

I am don'e with you.  If you can't stop lying about science, you dumb ass!

Maelstrom wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 12:46am:

Goodscience - He means that randomness isn't what many would consider random.. As in a random number between 1 - 10. He is saying that randomness within the universe is based off of an unknown variable. This unknown variable causes us to believe the outcome is unpredictable. Unpredictability equates to a random effect. If the variable is ever changing like the temperature for example, the entire equation would SEEM random simply because of its unpredictable nature. So when physicists and scientists refer to something being random.. they mean that it is currently unpredictable with our current level of technology. Just because something isn't random however, isn't proof of a God. The reason being is that for every attribute that you can apply to God, I could remove the none factors from the equation meaning that God himself is a none factor since there is nothing that God can do that the universe can't do. The universe is VERY conservative. The chances of the universe actually having a divine power behind it is actually an impossibility because of the conservative nature of existence. (What I mean by conservative I do not mean that the universe chose a political party. I mean that the universe doesn't apply variables to the equations that it calculates which take absolutely no effect at all. Also - Two things cannot share the same attributes if they both do the exact same thing. It would cancel out one of the attributes since both aren't needed.) So in essence - God isn't needed.

Who the f**k took your mind from you?  Why are you such a poor protector of your intelligence? Didn't any one ever tell you that people are full of garbage?  That humans are really stupid.. Don't you know that?
Did your parents f**k you up?  Did they make you into a f**king pawn and a "bitch" of other people?

Lol!!!

Have you still not figured out the meaning of the word random despite being given the ACTUAL definition, GSFY? I know you can't teach old dogs new tricks, but crikey...
How about mutation? Does it still mean a f**ked up thing that needs constant surgery? What about Diamonds? Are they still not made of carbon?
Have you deleted those posts where you let slip how ignorant you are yet? I've seen you do it before...
What about giving users the ability to edit BACK, have you done that yet?
Still retorting with pointless ad hominems when you can't answer a simple question? Not surprising, really - you have an IQ above genius after all.
This really is the funniest, most retarded forum.
I read in a thread you're now getting a law degree. Is it true? Why law? What could a pseudo-scientist like yourself do with a law degree...?
Is it so you can learn how to unlearn and truthify another field in the way you've evidently completely sussed out science? I'm glad you're taking this on - the world NEEDS truthification, once it's learned how to unlearn, that is.
Remember, you're not exactly known for being truthful, so one wonders why you'd point this out so often.
Remember you've said:
God = Truth
All scientists are liars
You are the only one who knows what the truth behind science is.

You can pretend all you like that you are a nexus, but in reality you're just a failed salesman. I can see why you turned to the internet to propagate your nonsense...
You'll notice how you have literally NO FOLLOWERS. Not a single person you've invited here has taken you seriously (rightly).

Now delete this forum and stop wasting your life. I know you're being sued so your time is probably a precious commodity, especially if you're taking a degree in law as well...
:-X

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 8:38pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:46pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:41pm: I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world. Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT! Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are. When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns. I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold. I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science. There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand. When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky. Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well. I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth. It is the foundation of free thought. I have explained everything to you. Sadly, you have failed to prove me wrong. Go back and read and copy/paste an argument/statement that I made and SHOW me where it is wrong. When you can't do this, you have NO reason to not believe me..........unless you are not smart or you FEAR your God! You have a f**king rut etched in your mind, and you can't get out of that f**king rut. I am don'e with you.  If you can't stop lying about science, you dumb ass!

WHAHAHAH!  CANT prove me wrong, so might as well just SAY I am wrong!  WHAHAHAHAHAH

Keep trying, but being a dumb ass will never allow you to! WHAHA

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 8:38pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:46pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:41pm: I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world. Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT! Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are. When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns. I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold. I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science. There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand. When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky. Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well. I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth. It is the foundation of free thought. I have explained everything to you. Sadly, you have failed to prove me wrong. Go back and read and copy/paste an argument/statement that I made and SHOW me where it is wrong. When you can't do this, you have NO reason to not believe me..........unless you are not smart or you FEAR your God! You have a f**king rut etched in your mind, and you can't get out of that f**king rut. I am don'e with you.  If you can't stop lying about science, you dumb ass!

REALLY??  Can you show me where instead of just SAYING that I have rut etched in my head or should I PROVE to you that I can do the same.

You have a F**CKING rut etched in your mind, and you CANT get out of that F**CKING rut.

I would be done with you, but the entertainment value is just too much!!!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 8:38pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:46pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:41pm: I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world. Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT! Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are. When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns. I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold. I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science. There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand. When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky. Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well. I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth. It is the foundation of free thought. I have explained everything to you. Sadly, you have failed to prove me wrong. Go back and read and copy/paste an argument/statement that I made and SHOW me where it is wrong. When you can't do this, you have NO reason to not believe me..........unless you are not smart or you FEAR your God! You have a f**king rut etched in your mind, and you can't get out of that f**king rut. I am don'e with you.  If you can't stop lying about science, you dumb ass!

Come on GSFY, show me just 1 thing that I said that is wrong.  I bet you CANT find anything, but I will give you a chance.

If you CANT, then I will just have to label you a liar!  If you CAN, then I will admit you are right.  I am not SCARED to change my beliefs, but for some strange reason you CANT!

WHY?  WHO will punish you if you do? GOD or the Great Unicorn???  WHO do you believe is capable of flooding the world in order to wipe out the people that dont do as he commands them???  WHO are you afraid of? LMAO!

You're an idiot!

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2010 at 4:48pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 1st, 2010 at 8:38pm: MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:46pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:41pm: I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world. Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT! Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are. When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns. I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold. I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science. There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand. When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky. Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well. I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth. It is the foundation of free thought. I have explained everything to you. Sadly, you have failed to prove me wrong. Go back and read and copy/paste an argument/statement that I made and SHOW me where it is wrong. When you can't do this, you have NO reason to not believe me..........unless you are not smart or you FEAR your God! You have a f**king rut etched in your mind, and you can't get out of that f**king rut. I am don'e with you.  If you can't stop lying about science, you dumb ass! Come on GSFY, show me just 1 thing that I said that is wrong.  I bet you CANT find anything, but I will give you a chance. If you CANT, then I will just have to label you a liar!  If you CAN, then I will admit you are right.  I am not SCARED to change my beliefs, but for some strange reason you CANT! WHY?  WHO will punish you if you do? GOD or the Great Unicorn???  WHO do you believe is capable of flooding the world in order to wipe out the people that dont do as he commands them???  WHO are you afraid of? LMAO! You're an idiot!

Who took your intelligence from you?  Why did you cave in to nonsense?  Are you really that weak?  I don't like weak people who never protect their minds from indoctrination and other weak sucks.
You are not intelligent enough to be in the same room as me.

You are a liar and delusional. That goes with weak people who cave to social nonsense.

There is no random on this earth, because it violates the foundation of all scientific inquiry. The LAWof cause and effect.

Nobody can be as stupid as you, but it is fact. 

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2010 at 8:28pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 2nd, 2010 at 4:48pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 1st, 2010 at 8:38pm: MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:46pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:41pm: I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world. Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT! Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are. When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns. I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold. I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science. There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand. When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky. Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well. I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth. It is the foundation of free thought. I have explained everything to you. Sadly, you have failed to prove me wrong. Go back and read and copy/paste an argument/statement that I made and SHOW me where it is wrong. When you can't do this, you have NO reason to not believe me..........unless you are not smart or you FEAR your God! You have a f**king rut etched in your mind, and you can't get out of that f**king rut. I am don'e with you.  If you can't stop lying about science, you dumb ass! Come on GSFY, show me just 1 thing that I said that is wrong.  I bet you CANT find anything, but I will give you a chance. If you CANT, then I will just have to label you a liar!  If you CAN, then I will admit you are right.  I am not SCARED to change my beliefs, but for some strange reason you CANT! WHY?  WHO will punish you if you do? GOD or the Great Unicorn???  WHO do you believe is capable of flooding the world in order to wipe out the people that dont do as he commands them???  WHO are you afraid of? LMAO! You're an idiot! Who took your intelligence from you?  Why did you cave in to nonsense?  Are you really that weak?  I don't like weak people who never protect their minds from indoctrination and other weak sucks. You are not intelligent enough to be in the same room as me. You are a liar and delusional. That goes with weak people who cave to social nonsense. There is no random on this earth, because it violates the foundation of all scientific inquiry. The LAWof cause and effect. Nobody can be as stupid as you, but it is fact.

WHAHAH!  Again, I ask you..........just to see if you are lying or not...............what gives you the reason to believe that I have caved into nonsense, since you CANT prove that the nonsense that I believe is wrong?  HUH?

Just SAYING it without having any reason to BELIEVE it is weak, stupid, and just plain out insidious to logic!

Let's see if you CAN back up your claim or if you just prefer to lie!! LOL

Why are you so weak?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Who took your intelligence from you?  Why did you cave in to nonsense?  Are you really that weak?  I don't like weak people who never protect their minds from indoctrination and other weak sucks. You are not intelligent enough to be in the same room as me. You are a liar and delusional.

WHAHAH!  But you CANT show me where I am lying.

Typical WEAK minded people CANT find a reason to not beleive me...............except the FEAR instilled by their very own God!

If you CANT show me where I am lying/wrong/illogical, then you have no reason to not believe me!

I am much smarter than you are!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2010 at 8:28pm:

[quote author=4C7C706B6B1F0 link=1264357191/48#48 date=1265154505][quote author=292C252126480 link=1264357191/43#43 date=1265081914][quote author=6E5E5249493D0 link=1264357191/39#39 date=1264913200][quote author=7D787175721C0 link=1264357191/38#38 date=1264912865] There is no random on this earth, because it violates the foundation of all scientific inquiry. The LAWof cause and effect.

The above statement PROVES you are an idiot.

Random does not violate the laws of cause and effect.  WAHAHAAHAH!

Random works within the laws of cause and effect.........and when you dont KNOW the cause to the effect..............the effect is said/considered to be random.

PROVE ME WRONG!

If you can prove me wrong, then you have a very valid reason for not believing me.  But if you CANT prove me wrong, then you have no reason at all to not believe.

You are WEAK minded!  STop letting people CONTROL your weak mind!

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 6:03am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 2nd, 2010 at 8:28pm: MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 2nd, 2010 at 4:48pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 1st, 2010 at 8:38pm: MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:46pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:41pm: I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world. Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT! Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are. When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns. I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold. I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science. There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand. When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky. Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well. I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth. It is the foundation of free thought. I have explained everything to you. Sadly, you have failed to prove me wrong. Go back and read and copy/paste an argument/statement that I made and SHOW me where it is wrong. When you can't do this, you have NO reason to not believe me..........unless you are not smart or you FEAR your God! You have a f**king rut etched in your mind, and you can't get out of that f**king rut. I am don'e with you.  If you can't stop lying about science, you dumb ass! Come on GSFY, show me just 1 thing that I said that is wrong.  I bet you CANT find anything, but I will give you a chance. If you CANT, then I will just have to label you a liar!  If you CAN, then I will admit you are right.  I am not SCARED to change my beliefs, but for some strange reason you CANT! WHY?  WHO will punish you if you do? GOD or the Great Unicorn???  WHO do you believe is capable of flooding the world in order to wipe out the people that dont do as he commands them???  WHO are you afraid of? LMAO! You're an idiot! Who took your intelligence from you?  Why did you cave in to nonsense?  Are you really that weak?  I don't like weak people who never protect their minds from indoctrination and other weak sucks. You are not intelligent enough to be in the same room as me. You are a liar and delusional. That goes with weak people who cave to social nonsense. There is no random on this earth, because it violates the foundation of all scientific inquiry. The LAWof cause and effect. Nobody can be as stupid as you, but it is fact.  WHAHAH!  Again, I ask you..........just to see if you are lying or not...............what gives you the reason to believe that I have caved into nonsense, since you CANT prove that the nonsense that I believe is wrong?  HUH? Just SAYING it without having any reason to BELIEVE it is weak, stupid, and just plain out insidious to logic! Let's see if you CAN back up your claim or if you just prefer to lie!! LOL Why are you so weak?

Thinking that RANDOM violates the laws of cause and effect is STUPID, since random works WITHIN the laws of physics.

PROVE THIS IS WRONG, if you can, but I bet you CANT!  Let's see if you can!!!!! LOL


You SEE, GSFY, if you CANT prove what I say is wrong/illogical/or a lie.............then you have absolutely no reason to not believe me unless you are too stupid to understand or too scared to understand.  WHICH IS IT????

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 6:23am:

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 3rd, 2010 at 6:03am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 2nd, 2010 at 8:28pm: MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 2nd, 2010 at 4:48pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 1st, 2010 at 8:38pm: MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:46pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:41pm: I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world. Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT! Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are. When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns. I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold. I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science. There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand. When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky. Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well. I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth. It is the foundation of free thought. I have explained everything to you. Sadly, you have failed to prove me wrong. Go back and read and copy/paste an argument/statement that I made and SHOW me where it is wrong. When you can't do this, you have NO reason to not believe me..........unless you are not smart or you FEAR your God! You have a f**king rut etched in your mind, and you can't get out of that f**king rut. I am don'e with you.  If you can't stop lying about science, you dumb ass! Come on GSFY, show me just 1 thing that I said that is wrong.  I bet you CANT find anything, but I will give you a chance. If you CANT, then I will just have to label you a liar!  If you CAN, then I will admit you are right.  I am not SCARED to change my beliefs, but for some strange reason you CANT! WHY?  WHO will punish you if you do? GOD or the Great Unicorn???  WHO do you believe is capable of flooding the world in order to wipe out the people that dont do as he commands them???  WHO are you afraid of? LMAO! You're an idiot! Who took your intelligence from you?  Why did you cave in to nonsense?  Are you really that weak?  I don't like weak people who never protect their minds from indoctrination and other weak sucks. You are not intelligent enough to be in the same room as me. You are a liar and delusional. That goes with weak people who cave to social nonsense. There is no random on this earth, because it violates the foundation of all scientific inquiry. The LAWof cause and effect. Nobody can be as stupid as you, but it is fact.  WHAHAH!  Again, I ask you..........just to see if you are lying or not...............what gives you the reason to believe that I have caved into nonsense, since you CANT prove that the nonsense that I believe is wrong?  HUH? Just SAYING it without having any reason to BELIEVE it is weak, stupid, and just plain out insidious to logic! Let's see if you CAN back up your claim or if you just prefer to lie!! LOL Why are you so weak? Thinking that RANDOM violates the laws of cause and effect is STUPID, since random works WITHIN the laws of physics. PROVE THIS IS WRONG, if you can, but I bet you CANT!  Let's see if you can!!!!! LOL You SEE, GSFY, if you CANT prove what I say is wrong/illogical/or a lie.............then you have absolutely no reason to not believe me unless you are too stupid to understand or too scared to understand.  WHICH IS IT????

Random violates the first laws of physics.  Cause and effect.
There is no such thing as a random event. All events are the results of causes. Random or non reason events are mystical and magical.  You are too stupid to continue with and discussion on this.  Either get with the lessons or go away.

It is built in to humans to need to believe in some religious idea. It is deeply ingrained in the instincts of humans, because we have religious icons on the walls of caves. It has always been here.

They must have beliefs in how things happen.  It is human nature.

When you destroy any form of normal religion in people's minds by brainwashing coercion, peer pressure and telling young people they are stupid if they  believe in God,  and then you replace it with a religion that is disguised as "science".  You have this nonsense religion of Evodelusionism.

  It is not science because it violates most of laws and science as we know it. There is absolutely no use of any of the real scientific methods.  There is no testing on fossils that could ever possibly show any transition and you have no DNA in fossils but only OPINIONS.  You sure have a lot of brainwashed fools believing in this crap. There is no evidence of any evolution in DNA. There is only evidence of a need to survive as the same creature.

It is well known that delusional beliefs are projected on the world. This is extremely well known in psychology. But noone is ever going to suspect that science is delusional?? Why not? Science has been delusional for as long as it has existed.

Anytime there is a religious belief as the foundation of science eventually it gets changed or becomes some other damned belief.  It used to be the earth was flat and you will fall off if you go too far. This was believed by all the "greatest minds". 
So to is this crap religious belief in creatures becoming other creatures, when there is no empirical evidence of this anywhere, and all of the evidence shows a genetic stability in creatures with fossils of living creatures over 110 million years old by this dumb ass radiometric dating system.

Anybody who believes in evolution is delusional by absolute definition. And it is normal human weakness to believe in such fairy tale religious nonsense.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 9:58pm:

Random violates the first laws of physics.  Cause and effect. There is no such thing as a random event. All events are the results of causes. Random or non reason events are mystical and magical.

Ok, I can't take this any longer.

There are (at least) two definitions for the word "random".

The first is the meaning that you, GSFY, have latched on to, and that is "non-deterministic". I think we all mostly agree that non-determinism does not occur in nature (with the possible exception of quantum events).

The second is the meaning that I, and I think most (if not all) scientists use when discussing phenomena such as evolution, and that is "deterministic, but the exact relationship between cause and effect is unknown (or even unknowable at our current state of knowledge), and thus unpredictable".

The errors that occur during genetic reproduction are not non-deterministic, but the exact relationship between their cause and the observed effect is not fully known. Since it is a lot easier to say "random" instead of "deterministic, but the exact relationship between cause and effect is unknown, and thus unpredictable", we call these events "random".

Continuing to attack "random" using the first definition is nothing more than a straw man argument.

But here's the kicker: even IF the Theory of Evolution claimed that these events were non-deterministically random, it is still observably true that these events occur. Your argument with respect to "random" has NO IMPACT on the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 9:58pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 3rd, 2010 at 6:23am: MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 3rd, 2010 at 6:03am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 2nd, 2010 at 8:28pm: MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 2nd, 2010 at 4:48pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 1st, 2010 at 8:38pm: MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:46pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:41pm: I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world. Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT! Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are. When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns. I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold. I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science. There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand. When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky. Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well. I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth. It is the foundation of free thought. I have explained everything to you. Sadly, you have failed to prove me wrong. Go back and read and copy/paste an argument/statement that I made and SHOW me where it is wrong. When you can't do this, you have NO reason to not believe me..........unless you are not smart or you FEAR your God! You have a f**king rut etched in your mind, and you can't get out of that f**king rut. I am don'e with you.  If you can't stop lying about science, you dumb ass! Come on GSFY, show me just 1 thing that I said that is wrong.  I bet you CANT find anything, but I will give you a chance. If you CANT, then I will just have to label you a liar!  If you CAN, then I will admit you are right.  I am not SCARED to change my beliefs, but for some strange reason you CANT! WHY?  WHO will punish you if you do? GOD or the Great Unicorn???  WHO do you believe is capable of flooding the world in order to wipe out the people that dont do as he commands them???  WHO are you afraid of? LMAO! You're an idiot! Who took your intelligence from you?  Why did you cave in to nonsense?  Are you really that weak?  I don't like weak people who never protect their minds from indoctrination and other weak sucks. You are not intelligent enough to be in the same room as me. You are a liar and delusional. That goes with weak people who cave to social nonsense. There is no random on this earth, because it violates the foundation of all scientific inquiry. The LAWof cause and effect. Nobody can be as stupid as you, but it is fact.  WHAHAH!  Again, I ask you..........just to see if you are lying or not...............what gives you the reason to believe that I have caved into nonsense, since you CANT prove that the nonsense that I believe is wrong?  HUH? Just SAYING it without having any reason to BELIEVE it is weak, stupid, and just plain out insidious to logic! Let's see if you CAN back up your claim or if you just prefer to lie!! LOL Why are you so weak? Thinking that RANDOM violates the laws of cause and effect is STUPID, since random works WITHIN the laws of physics. PROVE THIS IS WRONG, if you can, but I bet you CANT!  Let's see if you can!!!!! LOL You SEE, GSFY, if you CANT prove what I say is wrong/illogical/or a lie.............then you have absolutely no reason to not believe me unless you are too stupid to understand or too scared to understand.  WHICH IS IT???? Random violates the first laws of physics.  Cause and effect.

NOPE!  WHAHA!  I proved it does not, but for some strange reason you CANT believe me.

Does your God punish for DISbelieving in him or something?  There must be some reason for you not being able to believe me, all the while you CANT show me where I am wrong!

Hmmmmm, what could it be?

There is no such thing as a random event. All events are the results of causes. Random or non reason events are mystical and magical.



And as I said, when you don't know of THOSE CAUSES, the outcomes are considered random; they are unpredictable such as in the outcome of a coin toss.

When are you going to get it?

PROVE ME WRONG!!!!!!   Try just once!

You are too stupid to continue with and discussion on this.]]]]


Either prove me wrong or look STUPID/FEARFUL!

If you can't prove me wrong, you are either too stupid to understand or too scared.  I hope you prove it is fear!

It is up to you!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 12:03am:

It is built in to humans to need to believe in some religious idea. It is deeply ingrained in the instincts of humans, because we have religious icons on the walls of caves. It has always been here. They must have beliefs in how things happen.  It is human nature. When you destroy any form of normal religion in people's minds by brainwashing coercion, peer pressure and telling young people they are stupid if they  believe in God,  and then you replace it with a religion that is disguised as "science".  You have this nonsense religion of Evodelusionism.

When we CAN prove the beliefs of the Religious Zealots are wrong, and since they continue to maintain those FALSE beliefs, we certainly have every right to call them stupid or at least FEARFUL!

When you are fearful of your God's punishment, there is no way you can believe in things that will get you punished!  You just CANT do it even though you can't prove the scientists wrong on anything!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 9:58pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 3rd, 2010 at 6:23am: MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 3rd, 2010 at 6:03am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 2nd, 2010 at 8:28pm: MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 2nd, 2010 at 4:48pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 1st, 2010 at 8:38pm: MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:46pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:41pm: I have gone over this before.  Being predictable has nothing to do with random. Random is not even a real word. It is a concept in abstract math that has never been shown to be part of the real physical world. Every event in existence can be reduced to all the causes and calculated.  You can do empirical testing on any physical event and determine all the causes and the way the forces work on ANY EVENT! Just because YOU don't know what and how it works, does not make any event random.  It is a human weakness to try and see things like luck. Or to use words like random to make an excuse for how stupid they are. When some guy gets "hot" on the dice playing craps, it is because of how he is holding the dice, and trowing them, not because of luck. If he has a certain way of holding the dice and his "lucky" method is to put the two sixes together or whatever is part of his method. The next night he my crap out every time using what he thought was his "lucky" throw.  It is because of the conditions of his muscles, his mental state etc that cause those dice to go hot for a while, but that rarely returns. I have read about 6 books by professional gamblers in my life, people who actually make money on observing other people and making money on "hot" players. There is usually a pattern and a good observer will know when the thrower goes cold. I read books on most subjects that deals with life and science. There is no such thing a luck.  There is no such thing as random. Both are fantasy created by people to explain things they don't understand. When you are in business for yourself, you know that luck is not real. You study the market, make decisions based on experience and knowledge. That is what makes people lucky. Being nice to other people and loving other people is part of that as well. I do know this; There are a lot of people out there who want to use you, want to make you a pawn of their beliefs. If that is what you allow.  I never allow people to do that to me, ever.  People who actually care about you will tell you the truth. It is the foundation of free thought. I have explained everything to you. Sadly, you have failed to prove me wrong. Go back and read and copy/paste an argument/statement that I made and SHOW me where it is wrong. When you can't do this, you have NO reason to not believe me..........unless you are not smart or you FEAR your God! You have a f**king rut etched in your mind, and you can't get out of that f**king rut. I am don'e with you.  If you can't stop lying about science, you dumb ass! Come on GSFY, show me just 1 thing that I said that is wrong.  I bet you CANT find anything, but I will give you a chance. If you CANT, then I will just have to label you a liar!  If you CAN, then I will admit you are right.  I am not SCARED to change my beliefs, but for some strange reason you CANT! WHY?  WHO will punish you if you do? GOD or the Great Unicorn???  WHO do you believe is capable of flooding the world in order to wipe out the people that dont do as he commands them???  WHO are you afraid of? LMAO! You're an idiot! Who took your intelligence from you?  Why did you cave in to nonsense?  Are you really that weak?  I don't like weak people who never protect their minds from indoctrination and other weak sucks. You are not intelligent enough to be in the same room as me. You are a liar and delusional. That goes with weak people who cave to social nonsense. There is no random on this earth, because it violates the foundation of all scientific inquiry. The LAWof cause and effect. Nobody can be as stupid as you, but it is fact.  WHAHAH!  Again, I ask you..........just to see if you are lying or not...............what gives you the reason to believe that I have caved into nonsense, since you CANT prove that the nonsense that I believe is wrong?  HUH? Just SAYING it without having any reason to BELIEVE it is weak, stupid, and just plain out insidious to logic! Let's see if you CAN back up your claim or if you just prefer to lie!! LOL Why are you so weak? Thinking that RANDOM violates the laws of cause and effect is STUPID, since random works WITHIN the laws of physics. PROVE THIS IS WRONG, if you can, but I bet you CANT!  Let's see if you can!!!!! LOL You SEE, GSFY, if you CANT prove what I say is wrong/illogical/or a lie.............then you have absolutely no reason to not believe me unless you are too stupid to understand or too scared to understand.  WHICH IS IT???? All events are the results of causes. Random or non reason events are mystical and magical.

IDIOT! WHAHAH!  If all events are the result of causes, then there is no such things as events with no causes..............but yet you say non reason events are mystical.

How can NON reason/NON caused events even exist............if all events are the result of a cause????????  Man you are quite dumb!!

All events have causes, but the ones you dont know the causes to.............are called random.

Unless you can come up with a word that better describes them!

Events with unknown cause (i.e. we are not able to predict it, even though we in theory could), are apparently random, pseudo-random or seemingly random. We know we could have predicted them if we had enough information, like the throw of a dice right after it left our hand. To us it SEEMS random, even if it isn't.

However, there are such things as true random events taking place every day. I have given GSFY a concrete example of randomness and even explained to him WHY it is true randomness. We can predict the probability of an event, and so hence we KNOW that it is random (with a predictable probability), but GSFY still denies that fact, and it was a big mistake to do that.

metha wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 10:52pm:

Events with unknown cause (i.e. we are not able to predict it, even though we in theory could), are apparently random, pseudo-random or seemingly random. We know we could have predicted them if we had enough information, like the throw of a dice right after it left our hand. To us it SEEMS random, even if it isn't. However, there are such things as true random events taking place every day. I have given GSFY a concrete example of randomness and even explained to him WHY it is true randomness. We can predict the probability of an event, and so hence we KNOW that it is random (with a predictable probability), but GSFY still denies that fact, and it was a big mistake to do that.

Because you cannot see or find the cause to be way beyond comprehension, still does not allow any science to violate the foundational laws of science.

Until it disappears from view and goes into a dimension that is NOT physical everything in the universe is cause and effect or cause and result, which is the foundational law of all science.  It is what science is based on.

Because the human mind is weak and feeble that we use mystical nonsense to explain things we cannot possibly understand.  Then we (figuratively) teach this crap to students as if we are the authority on life.

We know the causes! That is the whole point. Using those causes we can predict the probability. It is random because we can predict the probability. A throw of dice is not random (I agree on that) after the dice left our hand. Yes you are right: Given enough information about the dice the moment it leaves the hand, we can predict the result (practically impossible, but in theory we could). This SEEMS random, but isn't. The case about the electron IS random, because an electron is really very simple. It is an elementary particle, and easy to understand. However, it does NOT obey Newtonian physics. It obeys other simple laws, and we can predict its position and state, but never say with 100% certainty, simply because it doesn't obey Newtonian mechanics. You are the one that do not understand the causes. You say it's me? But I do, and it is not really that difficult. What you need to think about is that your thinking is locked in Newtonian physics, but the world is not that simple. There are other laws than Newtonian physics on the LARGE scale, and other laws on the very SMALL scale. The big thing in physics today is to join the theory of LARGE scale physics with SMALL scale physics.

metha wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 11:09pm:

We know the causes! That is the whole point. Using those causes we can predict the probability. It is random because we can predict the probability. A throw of dice is not random (I agree on that) after the dice left our hand. Yes you are right: Given enough information about the dice the moment it leaves the hand, we can predict the result (practically impossible, but in theory we could). This SEEMS random, but isn't. The case about the electron IS random, because an electron is really very simple. It is an elementary particle, and easy to understand. However, it does NOT obey Newtonian physics. It obeys other simple laws, and we can predict its position and state, but never say with 100% certainty, simply because it doesn't obey Newtonian mechanics. You are the one that do not understand the causes. You say it's me? But I do, and it is not really that difficult. What you need to think about is that your thinking is locked in Newtonian physics, but the world is not that simple. There are other laws than Newtonian physics on the LARGE scale, and other laws on the very SMALL scale. The big thing in physics today is to join the theory of LARGE scale physics with SMALL scale physics.

Like I said, when you can find the cause, you will see it is the result of a cause.  It can be no other way.

I am not stubborn just not gullible to believe people who have extremely limited awareness.

When you are outside of yourself completely objective, then you can see the cause of everything.

Didn't you just read what I said? I said we know the causes. This is not a belief. This can be shown experimentally. You are the one that believes that Newtonian mechanics also govern the elementary particles. But we KNOW for a fact that this is not the case, because they VIOLATE Newtonian mechanics. YOU need to give evidence that it is not random, despite the experiments that have been done. YOU need to show and give evidence that elementary particles obeys Newtonian mechanics. I noticed you like Einstein, and you always quote him. But according to you he was still totally wrong in everything he said.

Like I said, when you can find the cause, you will see it is the result of a cause.  It can be no other way.

I am not stubborn just not gullible to believe people who have extremely limited awareness.

When you are outside of yourself completely objective, then you can see the cause of everything.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 11:55pm:

Like I said, when you can find the cause, you will see it is the result of a cause.  It can be no other way.

Rinse and repeat, that'll get through to them...


Quote:

I am not stubborn just not gullible to believe people who have extremely limited awareness.

You're not stubborn, you're quite ignorant.


Quote:

When you are outside of yourself completely objective, then you can see the cause of everything.

So you are the only person in the entire world without a subjective view? I don't fvcking think so.
You can see the cause of everything? Why am I insulting you, then? Nope, it's not because I'm jealous of your false claims of a high IQ, it's not because you've read either 20,000, 200,000 (or whatever figure you've found somewhere that refers to the amount of papers there are on a given subject) peer-reviewed papers (you haven't - this is obvious even to laymen), it's not because I'm delusional, it's not because I fear the things you preach.
You know what? I'll actually tell you.
It's because you're fvcking hilarious. I tried to speak to you when I first joined, gave you the benefit of the doubt, have given you ample chance to prove ANYTHING you say is correct since.
What can we garner from your hundreds of posts? You're totally ignorant of each subject you attempt to tackle. Every thread is full of refutes which you ignore and build strawmen to validate your ego. Pathetic, yet hilarious.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 11:02pm:

metha wrote on Feb 4th, 2010 at 10:52pm: Events with unknown cause (i.e. we are not able to predict it, even though we in theory could), are apparently random, pseudo-random or seemingly random. We know we could have predicted them if we had enough information, like the throw of a dice right after it left our hand. To us it SEEMS random, even if it isn't. However, there are such things as true random events taking place every day. I have given GSFY a concrete example of randomness and even explained to him WHY it is true randomness. We can predict the probability of an event, and so hence we KNOW that it is random (with a predictable probability), but GSFY still denies that fact, and it was a big mistake to do that. Because you cannot see or find the cause to be way beyond comprehension, still does not allow any science to violate the foundational laws of science.

Random does not violate any laws(not one) and since the outcome is unpredictable because we dont know of the laws involved.................the outcome is considered random.

PROVE THIS WRONG, but I bet you CANT!   WATCH to see if I am right!

Being devoid of any rational thought, makes me believe you are one stupid person...................well, it might be fear, but you tell me that is wrong.

So, it must be stupidity!  MUST BE!

prolescum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 6:35am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 4th, 2010 at 11:55pm: Like I said, when you can find the cause, you will see it is the result of a cause.  It can be no other way. Rinse and repeat, that'll get through to them... Quote: I am not stubborn just not gullible to believe people who have extremely limited awareness. You're not stubborn, you're quite ignorant. [quote]When you are outside of yourself completely objective, then you can see the cause of everything.

So you are the only person in the entire world without a subjective view? I don't fvcking think so.
You can see the cause of everything? Why am I insulting you, then? Nope, it's not because I'm jealous of your false claims of a high IQ, it's not because you've read either 20,000, 200,000 (or whatever figure you've found somewhere that refers to the amount of papers there are on a given subject) peer-reviewed papers (you haven't - this is obvious even to laymen), it's not because I'm delusional, it's not because I fear the things you preach.
You know what? I'll actually tell you.
It's because you're fvcking hilarious. I tried to speak to you when I first joined, gave you the benefit of the doubt, have given you ample chance to prove ANYTHING you say is correct since.
What can we garner from your hundreds of posts? You're totally ignorant of each subject you attempt to tackle. Every thread is full of refutes which you ignore and build strawmen to validate your ego. Pathetic, yet hilarious.[/quote]

You can't insult me.  You don't even warrant my time.  I am using you for my book as an example of how stupid your beliefs are and how the belief is far more powerful than reality. 

It is amazing just how lost in this crap you are.  It is like it took over your mind, like a cancer or something.

I used to say that nobody could be that stupid as to violate obvious laws of science, but we have you as evidence. And all the people like you who believe in magical nonsense will be ridiculed like the people who believed the earth was flat. 
Keep in mind that they fervently believed that garbage, the same way you believe your Evodelusion religion dogma.

You need to get free of this mental illness you have.  You think that masses of people who have dogma and brainwashing as the foundation of belief, is just cause for you to believe this crap.

You are really stupid. Judd! Ignoremouse! Dumb ass! Delusional fool.

If you want to get free of the control this crap has over your life, you can. 
You have to stop reinforcing your beliefs, and get away from the idiots who support this fantasy. Then study all the evidence from a position of objectivity ( I really doubt you can do that.) and you will start to see as I have there is no foundation for this belief in the world.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 11:55pm:

Like I said, when you can find the cause, you will see it is the result of a cause.  It can be no other way. I am not stubborn just not gullible to believe people who have extremely limited awareness. When you are outside of yourself completely objective, then you can see the cause of everything.

Ok, let me tell you again: We know the causes. An elementary particle is simple. Very simple. We know how it works. You think Newtonian mechanics, but since elementary particles do not adhere to Newtonian physics, we need to look at this differently. Do you agree? Good....?

Now, an elementary particle can be measured, like an electron. We can measure its position and state (spin). Why do we know that this is not Newtonian mechanics? Well, we measure it and we see that the spin cannot be predicted. Even more so... we can not even tell for certain where it is. Even you should understand (if you are into physics and mathematics), that this is a very simple experiment (where the electron is and in what state it is). We know which forces acts on an electron, and so we have full control over that. So there are NO other causes for spin and position, besides the forces we already know. We can even give the electron so strong forces that any other force is practically annihilated. So lets do that... we do it... and then we measure. What happens? If the electron followed Newtonian mechanics, we could easily predict position and state (spin). What happens? We cannot predict it! Why? What is going on? Why can an electron be at two different positions at the same time (we can easily measure this, right?)? What do we do? We measure and measure and measure and measure again and again and again and again. We never stop, and we see that the results follows a pattern the more we measure. What do we see? We see that the measurements obey a PARTICULAR probability distribution!!! What the f**k!!!!!! This is random, but we try to predict it, but we cannot! What does this mean? The simple answer is of course: It is random!


Let me get this straight: I am not talking about dice throwing, which is really not random after the dice left the hand. I am talking about true randomness, and a predictable probability to the spin of the electron. Since you are into physics, you understand this, but you have showed me again and again that you do not understand, and so hence your claims are just false! You need to show me that you understand what I am saying before you can argue against it. But you are not able to. Why? Because I am smarter than you, and I understand this physics. If you want to get your message through to me, you need to make me believe that you have an idea of what I am talking about. If you want me to calculate this for you, with a vector space over the field of complex numbers, by calculating eigenvectors and eigen values, then by all means ask me... unless you can do it yourself. But if you cannot, then you really have no business in arguing against it at all. Get over yourself.

I already know all this. Don't keep repeating it like it is real.

Because YOU don't know the cause of this "event" does not make it random.

Electrons are on the subatomic level.  They are easily affected just by a person standing in the room. Don't you know this?
It is close to impossible to test anything on that level.

As soon as you inject yourself or any instruments around an electron it will react to that and will not behave in its normal behavior. Don't you know this?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 11:06am:

I already know all this.

Nope, you do not. And if you did, you would be able to answer my questions. But you aren't.


Quote:

Because YOU don't know the cause of this "event" does not make it random.

I know the causes, that is the whole point. We can in fact measure everything that influences the electron.


Quote:

Electrons are on the subatomic level.

Duh!!!
 


Quote:

They are easily affected just by a person standing in the room. Don't you know this?

You are insanely wrong. First of all, a person in a room could not influence an electron, because the forces influencing the electron are so much stronger than the gravity a person would be to an electron that it is directly annihilated.

Furthermore: again you just showed me that you do not understand how such experiments are done. All forces are eliminated during an experiment, and a particle collider is frozen down to practically 0 kelvin, or absolute zero, and there is not a person nearby AT ALL during any of these experiments. Tell me... are you really that ignorant?



Quote:

As soon as you inject yourself or any instruments around an electron it will react to that and will not behave in its normal behavior.

No it would NOT influence the electron, because my forces on the electron are equal to zero. But nevertheless, I am not nearby at all... I am maybe kilometers away from the absolute zero space where the measurement is happening.

Don't you know this?


Quote:

Don't you know this?

Pathetic!

Are you a troll?  You don't make any logical sense.
Just pointing your finger at an electron beam will cause it to deflect.

Are you here just to help the Evodelusionists to continue to destroy biological science?

How many of Einstein's theories have been proven?
As far a I know only one.

There is no such thing as random in physics.  It is only  a term that can be used in abstract math and HAS NEVER BEEN applied to physics in any way.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!



Close this dumbf**k idiot forum and get back to your life, GSFY. Maybe in a few years, if you study hard enough, you'll be able to converse with the adults, but I don't hold out much hope.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 3:11pm:

Are you a troll?  You don't make any logical sense. Just pointing your finger at an electron beam will cause it to deflect. Are you here just to help the Evodelusionists to continue to destroy biological science? How many of Einstein's theories have been proven? As far a I know only one. There is no such thing as random in physics.  It is only  a term that can be used in abstract math and HAS NEVER BEEN applied to physics in any way.

Two words:
Quantum Physics.

wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 7:32pm:

Two words: Quantum Physics.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, just for a second... even in Quantum Physics, we DON'T KNOW if events are truly random, or if there is some underlying cause that we simply don't know of, or aren't capable of detecting (yet).

In the Determinism vs. Non-Determinism argument, I think Quantum Physics is the only hiding place left for Non-Determinism... but time will tell if it is truly non-deterministic.

That being said, EVEN IF it is deterministic, it still doesn't have ANY effect on the validity of the Theory of Evolution. The Theory in NO WAY depends on TRULY RANDOM, TRULY NON-DETERMINISTIC events.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 3:11pm:

Are you a troll?  You don't make any logical sense.

Oh, so now that you are unable to answer my questions, you are calling me a troll? I, who have tried discussing with you on an adult level.


Quote:

Just pointing your finger at an electron beam will cause it to deflect.

Who doesn't make any logical sense, again?


Quote:

Are you here just to help the Evodelusionists to continue to destroy biological science?

I have said this to you many times before, but I will say it again: I do not know too much about Evolution yet, and I searched some forums to learn and discuss. I found out that this forum was not one of the places to take seriously.


Quote:

How many of Einstein's theories have been proven?

None.


Quote:

As far a I know only one.

Which one? The special theory of relativity or the general theory of relativity? If you again will write down e=mc^2, I will most definately laug my a** off. You're warned.

Einstein published about 300 articles, including some papers on quantum mechanics.

You failed to answer any of my questions. If you understood and knew the answer, it would take 2 minutes to write them down, but you didn't, and I know why.


Quote:

There is no such thing as random in physics.  It is only  a term that can be used in abstract math and HAS NEVER BEEN applied to physics in any way.

"Random" is NOT used in abstract math, but very concrete math like statistics and analysis. You do not know what abstract math is. You call it abstract math because you do not understand it. The definition of abstract math is NOT: "Math that is out there", like you think. Abstract math is about how it is presented, not the content and the results. There is an abstract way to do math and there is a more concrete way. THe abstract math seeks to generalize and axiomatize the mathematics involved, such that it can be applied to MORE! Of course abstract math has been used in physics. You told me you read Einstein (was it one paper only? Or one formula?), and obviously abstract math is involved. Stop quoting the man if he is such an idiot. Even linear algebra has an abstract way of being presented. Actually in most courses it is presented abstractly with axioms of vector spaces. That IS abstract, but yet VERY real.



Quote:

even in Quantum Physics, we DON'T KNOW if events are truly random, or if there is some underlying cause that we simply don't know of, or aren't capable of detecting (yet).

We don't really know anything with 100% certainty, contrary to what GSFY says. I have never claimed this with 100% certainty. However, if the uncertainty principle is true (which seems very likely), then we can never say anything for sure about a particles momentum and position. If we measure momentum with very much accuracy, we know less about position and vice versa. Since we never can determine with 100% certainty (no matter how hard we try), this is for us random, since we cannot determine it. In all of this, the following is important: This is NOT a statement about our inability to do experiments and measurements. It is a statement about nature itself.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 24^th, 2010 at 5:01pm:

You are very low IQ if...

You are very low IQ, MajorAtheist. How on earth can someone be low IQ?

YOU, MajorAtheist, is just a quotient. You, Sir, are accordong to GSFY a number divided on another number. YOU, MajorAtheist, are VERY, VERY special!


If people cannot see the irony in this, then they are very low IQ.

Dab33r wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 11:11pm:

wrote on Feb 5th, 2010 at 7:32pm: Two words: Quantum Physics. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, just for a second... even in Quantum Physics, we DON'T KNOW if events are truly random, or if there is some underlying cause that we simply don't know of, or aren't capable of detecting (yet). In the Determinism vs. Non-Determinism argument, I think Quantum Physics is the only hiding place left for Non-Determinism... but time will tell if it is truly non-deterministic. That being said, EVEN IF it is deterministic, it still doesn't have ANY effect on the validity of the Theory of Evolution. The Theory in NO WAY depends on TRULY RANDOM, TRULY NON-DETERMINISTIC events.

This is an excellent post of yours!  I congratuate you on this post!!  [smiley=thumbsup.gif] It is a breakthrough. I hope.

I see where you are caught.  I understand your dilemma.

Deterministic has nothing in common with cause and effect.
You do not have to assume that. This is the argument that has no basis in pure logic.   There exists NO deteministic logic in the universe! AND there is no such thing as random.

Both are magical thinking.  One is not part of the other, both are false.  One is used to brainwash you into this idea of random as if the alternative is deterministic or religous. That is not even logic. It is nonsense.

Everything in this universe is cause and effect and there is no determinism based on some unseen power. The power does not have to be unseen, because it is obvious and shown in all the laws of science that perpetuate life and life science, and is clear when you get clear of all delusions. The power of the universe IS the laws of science and you cannot violate the laws of science, even if you can't understand them.

wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 7:32pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 5th, 2010 at 3:11pm: Are you a troll?  You don't make any logical sense. Just pointing your finger at an electron beam will cause it to deflect. Are you here just to help the Evodelusionists to continue to destroy biological science? How many of Einstein's theories have been proven? As far a I know only one. There is no such thing as random in physics.  It is only  a term that can be used in abstract math and HAS NEVER BEEN applied to physics in any way. Two words: Quantum Physics.

Quantum physics has many things it cannot verify.  I only go by what is testable.  Most of it only works on exactly the same types of energy and you cannot mix things like biological complex and precise events and nonsense of things like random.
Every time I read about the attempts to violate science because they believe in something, it becomes more clear how powerful beliefs and dreams are. Reality is not as important as perpetuating faith and belief in things they, you and me cannot see.  This is what I see in Evodelusionism, because you cannot prove 90% of it as even close to plausible. All religion is base on a faith in things that cannot be proven. Ever notice that?

There is not one single piece of physical evidence that "says" evolution. Nothing to tie the belief to reality.

All that exists in this world is that creatures are programmed to survive and adapt as needed to stay alive as THE SAME CREATURE. If you can find something different then show it to me. I have looked for over 41 year into this and I keep coming back to see no improvement on the path to show this is real.  It gets worse as evidence shows up, but the Evodelusionists are more crafty at keeping it real in their minds by not looking at other plausibilities. They are blind to reality because of the forced belief.  Just like any religion based on human emotional needs.

metha wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 2:57am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 5th, 2010 at 3:11pm: Are you a troll?  You don't make any logical sense. Oh, so now that you are unable to answer my questions, you are calling me a troll? I, who have tried discussing with you on an adult level. Quote: Just pointing your finger at an electron beam will cause it to deflect. Who doesn't make any logical sense, again? [quote]Are you here just to help the Evodelusionists to continue to destroy biological science?

I have said this to you many times before, but I will say it again: I do not know too much about Evolution yet, and I searched some forums to learn and discuss. I found out that this forum was not one of the places to take seriously.


Quote:

How many of Einstein's theories have been proven?

None.


Quote:

As far a I know only one.

Which one? The special theory of relativity or the general theory of relativity? If you again will write down e=mc^2, I will most definately laug my a** off. You're warned.

Einstein published about 300 articles, including some papers on quantum mechanics.

You failed to answer any of my questions. If you understood and knew the answer, it would take 2 minutes to write them down, but you didn't, and I know why.


Quote:

There is no such thing as random in physics.  It is only  a term that can be used in abstract math and HAS NEVER BEEN applied to physics in any way.

"Random" is NOT used in abstract math, but very concrete math like statistics and analysis. You do not know what abstract math is. You call it abstract math because you do not understand it. The definition of abstract math is NOT: "Math that is out there", like you think. Abstract math is about how it is presented, not the content and the results. There is an abstract way to do math and there is a more concrete way. THe abstract math seeks to generalize and axiomatize the mathematics involved, such that it can be applied to MORE! Of course abstract math has been used in physics. You told me you read Einstein (was it one paper only? Or one formula?), and obviously abstract math is involved. Stop quoting the man if he is such an idiot. Even linear algebra has an abstract way of being presented. Actually in most courses it is presented abstractly with axioms of vector spaces. That IS abstract, but yet VERY real.



Quote:

even in Quantum Physics, we DON'T KNOW if events are truly random, or if there is some underlying cause that we simply don't know of, or aren't capable of detecting (yet).

We don't really know anything with 100% certainty, contrary to what GSFY says. I have never claimed this with 100% certainty. However, if the uncertainty principle is true (which seems very likely), then we can never say anything for sure about a particles momentum and position. If we measure momentum with very much accuracy, we know less about position and vice versa. Since we never can determine with 100% certainty (no matter how hard we try), this is for us random, since we cannot determine it. In all of this, the following is important: This is NOT a statement about our inability to do experiments and measurements. It is a statement about nature itself.[/quote]

The most ridiculous use of random is in calculating the odds on the lottery, based on random.  The odds vary considerably when the balls are dirty, has static electricity, has humid air in the machine instead of dry air.  If you had the ability to understand the whole of all the events that lead up to those numbers on those balls dropping, you would see that it is obviously not random.
Yet using math they calculate 1/156.000.000  for 42 numbers or something (fictitious number but as best as I can remember.)
Yet if you were to know as many factors as you can find, you would decrease the odds drastically towards your numbers coming up.

It is not random, but they try to make odds based on pure random that can only be used in AIR HEADS and abstract ideas of math that can never be proven in the physical world..

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 8:39pm:

The most ridiculous use of random is in calculating the odds on the lottery, based on random.  The odds vary considerably when the balls are dirty, has static electricity, has humid air in the machine instead of dry air.  If you had the ability to understand the whole of all the events that lead up to those numbers on those balls dropping, you would see that it is obviously not random. Yet using math they calculate 1/156.000.000  for 42 numbers or something (fictitious number but as best as I can remember.) Yet if you were to know as many factors as you can find, you would decrease the odds drastically towards your numbers coming up. It is not random, but they try to make odds based on pure random that can only be used in AIR HEADS and abstract ideas of math that can never be proven in the physical world..

And this has WHAT (?) to do with what I was saying? How?


I notice the following:

1) You are unable to answer my fundamental questions about Einstein's theories, and so hence I can only conclude that you have no idea what Einstein's theories are about. This means that in the area of physics, you are pretending to know what you are talking about, without having no clue.

2) You do not understand what "abstract math" means, and you discredit it as not valid, even though ALL concrete math have been subject to "abstractification" because of the way math is presented in the litterature. It means to me that you have not read a single book or paper on mathematics or physics.

3) You have not understood what I have said about randomness, and you are unable to adress my main points. You STILL talk about lottery and balls spinning around and being drawn, and you do not see that I look at this the same way as a dice throw. You are just able to come up with another example of "non-deterministic" randomness, i.e. randomness that in theory could be predicted (even though it is practically impossible), and a type of randomness that I actually AGREE is not really predictable (note that predictable and random is not the same concept here). But you fail to adress my PARTICULAR example of true randomness, because you don't understand it.

4) You are not interested in discussing sanely and healthy with intelligent people. You are interested in finding weak people that you can own and impress.

5) You do not understand physics, but claim you do. My conclusion is therefore that I can not trust you in other areas either. Including evolution.

6) You do not understand others arguments, and so hence you are not worthy any time. You make a fool out of yourself, but you do not realize it yourself. You have been caught in the act of lying about what you know, and you have been exposed as a person that has no clue what he is talking about.

7) You do not understand physics, let alone Einstein.

8) You do not understand mathematics, not even what the word "abstract" means in that context.

9) Even the creationists laugh.

10) I do too.

What is wrong with your mind?

This is about "random" and the fact that it is nothing but a fantasy in physics, because your human mind cannot fathom the causes.

DONE! give up. You sound like an idiot and you are supposed to be smart.  You have nothing to base your belief in random on.

It does not exist, neither does "deterministic events".  Neither are true.

Don't you know this?

prolescum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 4:10pm:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Close this dumbf**k idiot forum and get back to your life, GSFY. Maybe in a few years, if you study hard enough, you'll be able to converse with the adults, but I don't hold out much hope.

This person is vile and disgusting.  It is amazing how many of the Evodelusionists are like this.  How can someone be so hateful over some stupid religious belief in Evodelusionism?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 7^th, 2010 at 11:10pm:

What is wrong with your mind? This is about "random" and the fact that it is nothing but a fantasy in physics, because your human mind cannot fathom the causes. DONE! give up. You sound like an idiot and you are supposed to be smart.  You have nothing to base your belief in random on. It does not exist, neither does "deterministic events".  Neither are true. Don't you know this?

This violates the law of randomness. Don't you know this?

You didn't understand any of my points. Neither did you answer my questions about Einstein's theories. What is relativity of time?

metha wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 4:27am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 7th, 2010 at 11:10pm: What is wrong with your mind? This is about "random" and the fact that it is nothing but a fantasy in physics, because your human mind cannot fathom the causes. DONE! give up. You sound like an idiot and you are supposed to be smart.  You have nothing to base your belief in random on. It does not exist, neither does "deterministic events".  Neither are true. Don't you know this? This violates the law of randomness. Don't you know this? You didn't understand any of my points. Neither did you answer my questions about Einstein's theories. What is relativity of time?

Random is imaginary, like the tooth fairy, and flying elephants on cartoons.

This is how intelligent you are? 
So far you are not doing very well.

Why do you allow people to control your mind with delusional magical crap like "random".

Do you want to have your DNA scrambled to prove the effects of "random mutations".  This is what they call random but even so, if you scramble DNA the process of scrambling DNA is cause and effect, and not random.

Do you understand? 

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 1:23pm:

Random is imaginary, like the tooth fairy, and flying elephants on cartoons.

And with that, you completely disprove your statement that you believe only things that have been absolutely proven.

No legitimate scientist would ever make such an absolute statement about something for which there is insufficient evidence. There is no absolute proof for the claim that true random cannot possibly exist.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 1:23pm:

This is how intelligent you are?  So far you are not doing very well.

You should be saying this to yourself.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 1:23pm:

Why do you allow people to control your mind with delusional magical crap like "random".

Yeah... instead, you should let GSFY control your mind with delusional magical crap like chimpanzees resulting from crossbreeding between humans and gorillas, and diamond being something other than carbon.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 1:23pm:

Do you understand?

We do, obviously you don't.

Determinism means that there is a cause for every effect.

Non-determinism means that there are uncaused effects - in other words, truly random events.

You have spent pages arguing in favor of strict determinism, although you claim otherwise.

What you are failing to understand is that the word "random" in scientific parlance does not mean strict non-determinism. We are not claiming that anything in the Theory of Evolution requires non-determinism. We are saying, and you are failing to understand, that science uses the word random to mean that the causes for the events are either not known, or beyond our current capability to calculate, and either way are simply not predictable with any reliable degree of accuracy.

What you are also failing to understand is that, even if random meant "non-deterministic", that would still have absolutely zero impact on the Theory of Evolution other than to change our statements from "random genetic errors" to "unpredictable genetic errors". It would do nothing to invalidate the Theory as a whole.

If you want to disprove the Theory of Evolution, you're going to have to spend your energy on other angles of attack, because this one is a big non-starter.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 1:23pm:

Do you want to have your DNA scrambled to prove the effects of "random mutations".  This is what they call random but even so, if you scramble DNA the process of scrambling DNA is cause and effect, and not random.

I have not talked about DNA and random mutations, because I cannot say that mutations are random, because I have no idea if they are or not. Therefore I do not make any claim on the matter. That's called intellectual honesty. Dab33r is absolutely correct when he says that it has nothing to do with evolution, because evolution do not rest on that. We can all try to disprove evolution, but this is NOT the way to attack it. What strikes me as very ironic, is that you argue that "ooooh.... evolution is so stupid, because they say life is an accident", but yet you say that there is no such thing as random. This would mean that the evolutionary scientists are CORRECT when they say that evolution is not a series of accidents.

If you do not understand the uncertainty principle, you have no business talking about true randomness. Just stop it.

IT'S A LAW. THERE. I WON!

Dab33r wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 7:12pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 9th, 2010 at 1:23pm: Random is imaginary, like the tooth fairy, and flying elephants on cartoons. And with that, you completely disprove your statement that you believe only things that have been absolutely proven. No legitimate scientist would ever make such an absolute statement about something for which there is insufficient evidence. There is no absolute proof for the claim that true random cannot possibly exist. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 9th, 2010 at 1:23pm: This is how intelligent you are?  So far you are not doing very well. You should be saying this to yourself. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 9th, 2010 at 1:23pm: Why do you allow people to control your mind with delusional magical crap like "random". Yeah... instead, you should let GSFY control your mind with delusional magical crap like chimpanzees resulting from crossbreeding between humans and gorillas, and diamond being something other than carbon. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 9th, 2010 at 1:23pm: Do you understand?  We do, obviously you don't. Determinism means that there is a cause for every effect. Non-determinism means that there are uncaused effects - in other words, truly random events. You have spent pages arguing in favor of strict determinism, although you claim otherwise. What you are failing to understand is that the word "random" in scientific parlance does not mean strict non-determinism. We are not claiming that anything in the Theory of Evolution requires non-determinism. We are saying, and you are failing to understand, that science uses the word random to mean that the causes for the events are either not known, or beyond our current capability to calculate, and either way are simply not predictable with any reliable degree of accuracy. What you are also failing to understand is that, even if random meant "non-deterministic", that would still have absolutely zero impact on the Theory of Evolution other than to change our statements from "random genetic errors" to "unpredictable genetic errors". It would do nothing to invalidate the Theory as a whole. If you want to disprove the Theory of Evolution, you're going to have to spend your energy on other angles of attack, because this one is a big non-starter.

"Determinism" means there is an intelligent cause for every event and it is controlled by some deity.  I have not seen that in my lifetime.  There is only the laws of physics "for ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction".  As you express so you get it back.

The belief you seem to have is based on nothing.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 3:37pm:

"Determinism" means there is an intelligent cause for every event and it is controlled by some deity.

Once again, you are making up your own definitions. Let's look at some real definitions, from various sources:

From wordnetweb.princeton.edu:


Quote:

(n) determinism (philosophy) a philosophical theory holding that all events are inevitable consequences of antecedent sufficient causes; often understood as denying the possibility of free will

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Determinism is the view that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

From Wiktionary:

Quote:

The doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice.

And finally, from Merriam-Webster:

Quote:

a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

There is nothing about a deity in any of those definitions.

If you want to have any chance of achieving credibility with your readers, you will have to stop making up your own definitions for things.

We all know that Evodelusionists hate the idea of God and that life is under some form of control. They are often looking for ways to make up their own morals and ethics and not wanting some deity to make the rules for them.

We all know that determinism is founded on "deity" in control. 
And that this is the reason for all the nonsense.

Determinism is based on deity.  It is a false premise.  Nothing is predetermined exactly but is the results of energy expressed. 

There is no such thing as "random" in the unverse, yet idiots believe in this false premise, because they make up religious reasons for things they cannot understand.

And the definition of words are always being changed to match the stupid beliefs.  That is one of my pet peeves with these screwed up pseudo scientists.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

We all know that Evodelusionists hate the idea of God and that life is under some form of control.

So you're saying the Catholic Church hates the idea of God?

No, we don't all hate the idea of God... Evolution and atheism - or anti-theism - have nothing to do with one another. The fact that the majority of atheists do accept evolution does not mean that one must be an atheist to accept evolution - as evidenced by the aforementioned Catholic Church.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

They are often looking for ways to make up their own morals and ethics and not wanting some deity to make the rules for them.

Do you believe there is a deity making your morals, ethics, and rules for you?


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

We all know that determinism is founded on "deity" in control.

Know, we do not all know that, because it is not true.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

Determinism is based on deity.

False. Determinism is nothing more than strict cause and effect.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

It is a false premise.

The only false premise here is your false premise that determinism is based on deity.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

Nothing is predetermined exactly but is the results of energy expressed.

We're not talking about predeterminism, we're talking about determinism.  Maybe that's the problem: you have the definitions confused. I do not dispute that predeterminism involves deity... but I am not at all talking about predeterminism, I am talking about determinism.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

There is no such thing as "random" in the unverse, yet idiots believe in this false premise, because they make up religious reasons for things they cannot understand.

It may be true that non-determinism does not exist in this universe... but you are making an absolute statement that cannot be proven. So much for your claim that you believe nothing that cannot be proven...


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

And the definition of words are always being changed to match the stupid beliefs.  That is one of my pet peeves with these screwed up pseudo scientists.

Definitions change as usage changes, and that's not restricted to science. Either way, no definitions have changed with respect to this discussion about determinism vs non-determinism except for your definitions of these words.

Dab33r wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 6:19pm: There is no such thing as "random" in the unverse, yet idiots believe in this false premise, because they make up religious reasons for things they cannot understand. It may be true that non-determinism does not exist in this universe... but you are making an absolute statement that cannot be proven.

And even if it is true that non-determinism does not exist in this universe, the only impact it has on the Theory of Evolution is to change the wording from "random genetic copying errors" to "insufficiently understood, and thus unpredictable, genetic copying errors". It does not challenge the validity of the Theory [b]in the slightest![b]

Seriously, this argument against the Theory of Evolution is a non-starter. You need to abandon it, and focus on arguments that might actually have some impact.

Dab33r wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:05pm:

Dab33r wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 7:02pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 6:19pm: There is no such thing as "random" in the unverse, yet idiots believe in this false premise, because they make up religious reasons for things they cannot understand. It may be true that non-determinism does not exist in this universe... but you are making an absolute statement that cannot be proven. And even if it is true that non-determinism does not exist in this universe, the only impact it has on the Theory of Evolution is to change the wording from "random genetic copying errors" to "insufficiently understood, and thus unpredictable, genetic copying errors". It does not challenge the validity of the Theory [b]in the slightest![b] Seriously, this argument against the Theory of Evolution is a non-starter. You need to abandon it, and focus on arguments that might actually have some impact.

There is no evolution without "random" fantasy, mystical, events.

I find it difficult to think that anyone with a friggin brain would just lay down like a bitch dog and believe this crap.

Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?  If you don't have any, why do you believe in this nonsense?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:35pm:

There is no evolution without "random" fantasy, mystical, events.

IF there is no "random", then what we have must be called something other than evolution, because it's still there. Evolution happened, and continues to happen, whether you call the genetic copying errors "random" or "not random, but based on causes too complex and/or insufficiently understood to be predictable".


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:35pm:

I find it difficult to think that anyone with a friggin brain would just lay down like a bitch dog and believe this crap.

I find it difficult to think that anyone with a friggin brain would just lay down like a bitch dog and believe YOUR crap - and yet you apparently expect them to, or else you ban them.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:35pm:

Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?  If you don't have any, why do you believe in this nonsense?

All of the observable evidence, taken in its entirety, tells me that evolution is true. The branching tree of life evident in every organism I see, when I compare it to other organisms I have seen. The genetic evidence simply confirms it.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 5:04am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 11:35pm: There is no evolution without "random" fantasy, mystical, events. IF there is no "random", then what we have must be called something other than evolution, because it's still there. Evolution happened, and continues to happen, whether you call the genetic copying errors "random" or "not random, but based on causes too complex and/or insufficiently understood to be predictable". GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 11:35pm: I find it difficult to think that anyone with a friggin brain would just lay down like a bitch dog and believe this crap. I find it difficult to think that anyone with a friggin brain would just lay down like a bitch dog and believe YOUR crap - and yet you apparently expect them to, or else you ban them. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 11:35pm: Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?  If you don't have any, why do you believe in this nonsense? All of the observable evidence, taken in its entirety, tells me that evolution is true. The branching tree of life evident in every organism I see, when I compare it to other organisms I have seen. The genetic evidence simply confirms it.

Evolution is fantasy.  It is a delusional fantasy.

There exists NO evidence that even suggests it is possible.

If you have any evidence that makes you think it is real, I can help you to unravel it and show you what it really is.


If you only get your information from the indoctrination then you are not honest.

This is the Neutral Site on evolution, because I have no religion.  I follow the evidence without social pressures or any form of indoctrination.

If you want be free, be free. It really is that simple.

Creationism is not science, and Evolution is not science.  It is not one or the other it is neither are science.  Both are based on faith and belief and that is not science.

The first thing I teach is what evidence really is. 

And try to unravel the delusional brainwashing used to perpetuate this crap on people.

Let's start.  We know you have no physical evidence for evolution so what do you "believe" is evidence?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:04am:

The first thing I teach is what evidence really is.

Evidence is that which can be observed. Do you disagree?


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:04am:

And try to unravel the delusional brainwashing used to perpetuate this crap on people.

... and instill your own brainwashing to perpetuate your own crap on people.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:04am:

Let's start.  We know you have no physical evidence for evolution so what do you "believe" is evidence?

"We" know know such thing. The evidence has been presented to you many times, I see no need to do it again. Just read for yourself at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:04am: The first thing I teach is what evidence really is.  Evidence is that which can be observed. Do you disagree? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:04am: And try to unravel the delusional brainwashing used to perpetuate this crap on people. ... and instill your own brainwashing to perpetuate your own crap on people. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:04am: Let's start.  We know you have no physical evidence for evolution so what do you "believe" is evidence? "We" know know such thing. The evidence has been presented to you many times, I see no need to do it again. Just read for yourself at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I want you to stop posting that ridiculous site and tell me what you consider to be evidence? List it or go one at a time.

Major Atheist said this "IDIOT! WHAHAH!  If all events are the result of causes, then there is no such things as events with no causes..............but yet you say non reason events are mystical.

How can NON reason/NON caused events even exist............if all events are the result of a cause????????  Man you are quite dumb!!

All events have causes, but the ones you dont know the causes to.............are called random.

Unless you can come up with a word that better describes them!"

And by so doing, "All events have causes, but the ones you dont know the causes to.......are called random."

And by doing so destroyed the foundation of atheism. That is exactly the point GoodScienceForYou have been trying to explain. No event is random, it is all governed by the principal of Cause and Effect. Even an atheist buddy of mine believes this and he doesn't realize that it devastates his belief that there is no god, meaning there is no ultimate cause.

So then let us discuss the Big Bang, an item in space where all gravity is centered in on a singularity. Suddenly the EFFECT is visible the singularity explodes and space-time is created, or so the story goes. The question to the Atheist is as follows, since Cause and Effect is the main principal of Science can we safely deduce that there was A Cause to the Effect? If you answer yes you have destroyed atheism.

Logical fallacies that you invoke if you say it caused itself, a being cannot exist before it exist. The singularity is also assumed to have remained in it's state for an undefined amount of time before the explosion, if no outside Cause or Force manipulated it, it would remain in that state forever.

As for the Coin toss, the entire point was that the outcome of the coin is decided by physical forces and not by some magical or assumed "random" none physical event. The experiment that is alluded to is to me a theoretical one and by the study of the movement of the coin in retrospect via cameras etc can be shown how the coin would land every single time if the right mathematical equations are calculated. No human have as of yet the mental capacity to make such predictions without the use of a way of observing this as far as we know, by our natural means. If however every aspect can be measured then we will notice that Gravity and Forces actually decides the outcome.

We can sum it up in a simple question. Did gravity at any point NOT affect the coin that was tossed, or did antagonizing forces not affect the coin? Such as the coin on it's way up, did your "random" affect the coin. How can Random affect anything if it's not governed by physical laws? Maybe the atheist have to resort to the spiritual realm to explain such events?

In conclusion we must conclude (pun) that random events does not take place, thus it is a given that an ultimate cause exist. Thus the belief that "God did it" is not only a logical step but an honest one. This is based on observations of reality and does not cause any logical fallacies. No guys, God did not create Himself and God was not created.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Cheers gang, will check the rest of the forum to see if I can find anything I don't agree with or agree with.


Ron.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 3:05am:

And by doing so destroyed the foundation of atheism.

The "foundation" of atheism? There is no foundation. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 3:05am:

it devastates his belief that there is no god, meaning there is no ultimate cause.

Question for you: what caused God to exist?

And no, sorry, I don't buy that special exemption you give to your God:


Mac23 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 3:05am:

God did not create Himself and God was not created.

I was going to respond to all of your points individually, but it would be a waste of time. Here's the bottom line. Either:

1. Non-deterministic events can occur

or

2. Everything has existed forever, and there is no ultimate cause.

I'm personally leaning towards 1, because 2 sounds a little too much like the special exemption. While it appears to be true that everything in the natural world is governed by Cause and Effect, it appears that at the Planck scale, truly non-deterministic events can occur. I'm talking about quantum physics here. Such a random event would have been the origin of all matter an energy in the universe, and the cause of the Big Bang.

But let's assume your argument is valid, and that there must have been an "Ultimate Cause": By what logic do you conclude which God it was that exists and was that "Ultimate Cause"? Where is the evidence from which to conclude that it is the Christian God, or the Islamic God, or some other God?

Here's the kicker to all of this: It is a false argument to claim that evolution requires non-deterministic random events. Evolution works just fine with all genetic variations having a causal chain.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 7:56pm:

\I want you to stop posting that ridiculous site and tell me what you consider to be evidence? List it or go one at a time.

Ok, let's start simple. What alternative explanation can you give for the observed commonalities among organisms that exist today? I obviously can't list all of those commonalities, as there are far too many and to do so accurately would require far too much detail... but here's a small example: cats, dogs, and humans (and probably many other animals, but I don't have time to research a full list) all have hind legs where the upper (thigh) has one bone, the femur, and the lower (calf) has two bones, the tibia and the fibula, and a bone over the knee, the patella.

Comparative morphology, such as the very small and specific example above, applied to the entire kingdom of life, would allow us to construct a branching tree, with organisms that are more similar being closer together, and animals that are more varied being further apart.

How else would you explain this pattern? What other cause would give this result?

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 4:33am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 7:56pm: \I want you to stop posting that ridiculous site and tell me what you consider to be evidence? List it or go one at a time. Ok, let's start simple. What alternative explanation can you give for the observed commonalities among organisms that exist today? I obviously can't list all of those commonalities, as there are far too many and to do so accurately would require far too much detail... but here's a small example: cats, dogs, and humans (and probably many other animals, but I don't have time to research a full list) all have hind legs where the upper (thigh) has one bone, the femur, and the lower (calf) has two bones, the tibia and the fibula, and a bone over the knee, the patella. Comparative morphology, such as the very small and specific example above, applied to the entire kingdom of life, would allow us to construct a branching tree, with organisms that are more similar being closer together, and animals that are more varied being further apart. How else would you explain this pattern? What other cause would give this result?

All you need is one utterly plausible alternative to destroy the individual pieces of this nonsense.   Most of the time these alternatives are far more logical and follow the evidence much better.  Evodelusionists only accept one plausibility because of the belief shoved into their heads.   There is still no evidence showing how 1/ life got here. 2/ how these creatures appeared. 3/ What caused the mass of organic diversity.  There is no evidence for this on this planet.

You do not need any alternative for this question, if the one you have leads to no answers or only religious fantasy.  The need to know can be the downfall of the process to find out.  It fosters religious, magicical and mystical things like "evolution".
This is the CAUSE of most religions. Don't you know that?
It is human weakness to insist on answers when there are none.  If they don't have any way to know, they will make them up.   There are NO scientific answers to how life has progressed or where these ORIGINAL or parent of the species lineage came from.  This is why any speculation is not science.  It is religious.

In order for a creature to walk and to walk on this earth they need the flexibility in the lower legs to take shock and twist, to move about.  This has nothing in common with the idea that fish came out of water and eventually became human over some immense time as they supposedly "evolved" from one genus to the next; the foundational definition of evolution and the final premise of the religious concept.

Commonalty amongst creatures is to be expected, since there are only so many proteans, and only so many, a very small and finite number of elements and molecules to use as parts of all creatures. This idea says that because all vertebrates have bones we all evolved from each other. This is the ridiculous logic.  There is one ridiculous hypothesis that because we share DNA constructs that proves we evolved from fish and mice.  Are you understanding, just how moronic that is?  You must first believe in this crap religious stuff, in order to accept such nonsense.

There are only so many ways to construct muscle tissue, for example, that responds to signals from the brain and contract to move  the creatures around.  That has nothing to do with any evolution.

"Comparative morphology" is not science. There is no way to test any of this to see if it is fact.  So, this is based solely on OPINION.

I do not allow opinions to be considered as evidence.  If you do you are not a guardian over your mind. Humans are weak and stupid for the most part, relatively speaking. So to trust them with your mind and accept all of there nonsense theories,  I mean religous concepts as if they are science shows your weakness, and trusting of humanity.

Humanity has a horrible reputation for war, hate, class systems, creating more and more distinctions and differences between nations and religions, (more logical reasons to kill each other). That is what they do, to make more problems by following human nature into a pit of ignorance.  Peace, love and understanding is not achieved by creating separation and using religious nonsense, like Evodelusionism.

Opinions are like weak humans. Everybody has them, but only crap comes out.  There is no such thing as an expert in "evolutionary morphology" because it is just crap from weak humans and their dumb ass beliefs.

Opinions from experts is NEVER considered as evidence to a seeker of the truth in any matter. 

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 7:17am:

All you need is one utterly plausible alternative to destroy the individual pieces of this nonsense.

Ok... so what is that alternative? All that crap you just wrote, and you didn't give one. Maybe it's because you don't have one?

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 5:19pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 7:17am: All you need is one utterly plausible alternative to destroy the individual pieces of this nonsense. Ok... so what is that alternative? All that crap you just wrote, and you didn't give one. Maybe it's because you don't have one?

The only thing shown in evidence is that creatures are programmed to survive as the same creatures.

There is no such thing as evolution.  All the evidence we have only show survival until extinction.

That is all we really know.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 9:11am:

prolescum wrote on Feb 5th, 2010 at 6:35am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 4th, 2010 at 11:55pm: Like I said, when you can find the cause, you will see it is the result of a cause.  It can be no other way. Rinse and repeat, that'll get through to them... Quote: I am not stubborn just not gullible to believe people who have extremely limited awareness. You're not stubborn, you're quite ignorant. [quote]When you are outside of yourself completely objective, then you can see the cause of everything. So you are the only person in the entire world without a subjective view? I don't fvcking think so. You can see the cause of everything? Why am I insulting you, then? Nope, it's not because I'm jealous of your false claims of a high IQ, it's not because you've read either 20,000, 200,000 (or whatever figure you've found somewhere that refers to the amount of papers there are on a given subject) peer-reviewed papers (you haven't - this is obvious even to laymen), it's not because I'm delusional, it's not because I fear the things you preach. You know what? I'll actually tell you. It's because you're fvcking hilarious. I tried to speak to you when I first joined, gave you the benefit of the doubt, have given you ample chance to prove ANYTHING you say is correct since. What can we garner from your hundreds of posts? You're totally ignorant of each subject you attempt to tackle. Every thread is full of refutes which you ignore and build strawmen to validate your ego. Pathetic, yet hilarious.

You can't insult me.  You don't even warrant my time.  I am using you for my book as an example of how stupid your beliefs are and how the belief is far more powerful than reality. 
[/quote]


Then please, please, please show me where I am wrong!!!!

I am starting to think that you can't, but willing to give you a chance!  Can you?

Prove that evolution is a religion, since we have proved it is not.
Prove that random is magical, when we clearly defined it as 'an outcome that is subjected to an array of physical forces; therefore making it unpredictabile.'

There is no physical evidence that suggests evolution.

There is only evidence of creatures adapting to survive to a point, then going extinct.

There have never been any fish that evolved into anything. There is no evidence of it. There are religious believers in this but they have no physical evidence to back it.

All of the evidence only points to creatures wanting to survive as the same creatures. There is nothing else in any of the evidence.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 11:12pm:

There is no physical evidence that suggests evolution. There is only evidence of creatures adapting to survive to a point, then going extinct. There have never been any fish that evolved into anything. There is no evidence of it. There are religious believers in this but they have no physical evidence to back it. All of the evidence only points to creatures wanting to survive as the same creatures. There is nothing else in any of the evidence.

Sorry the evidence states otherwise!

But for some strange reason you will not even attempt to prove any of the evidence wrong.  You tried!

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 4:20am:

Mac23 wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 3:05am: And by doing so destroyed the foundation of atheism. The "foundation" of atheism? There is no foundation. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God. This is a false statement, atheism is not only a lack of belief in a God or gods it also attempts to prove it, thus you have two lairs one demonstrates a blind faith in the non existence of the supernatural, the other claims to know or have evidence that the supernatural don't exist. Either version fails when confronted with Cause and Effect. Everything that Has a beginning MUST have a cause. God does not have a beginning thus need not have a cause. It is actually very simple. Mac23 wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 3:05am: it devastates his belief that there is no god, meaning there is no ultimate cause. Question for you: what caused God to exist? This is a logical fallacy. And no, sorry, I don't buy that special exemption you give to your God: I'm sorry that you don't accept the premise or definition of God, perhaps you can explain infinite regression as to why that is more logical than one being that have existed forever. As the argument goes. Because we began to exist we must be caused by something or someone that did not begin to exist. Mac23 wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 3:05am: God did not create Himself and God was not created. I was going to respond to all of your points individually, but it would be a waste of time. Here's the bottom line. Either: 1. Non-deterministic events can occur or 2. Everything has existed forever, and there is no ultimate cause. I'm personally leaning towards 1, because 2 sounds a little too much like the special exemption. While it appears to be true that everything in the natural world is governed by Cause and Effect, it appears that at the Planck scale, truly non-deterministic events can occur. I'm talking about quantum physics here. Such a random event would have been the origin of all matter an energy in the universe, and the cause of the Big Bang.[/color] Or 3. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. *********************** Quantum physics is a rather speculative and theoretical in nature, almost impossible to prove anything there, and you would rather cling to the faint hope that a random event (not governed by any laws) could happen rather than face the obvious that stares in our faces that Cause and Effect is real? Very interesting. *********************************** But let's assume your argument is valid, and that there must have been an "Ultimate Cause": By what logic do you conclude which God it was that exists and was that "Ultimate Cause"? Where is the evidence from which to conclude that it is the Christian God, or the Islamic God, or some other God? ********************* It is not relevant really to discuss what God at this point in the discussion. ****************************** Here's the kicker to all of this: It is a false argument to claim that evolution requires non-deterministic random events. Evolution works just fine with all genetic variations having a causal chain.

Here's the kicker to your comment, we are not discussing evolution, just that the fact that there is no real random events happening in this world that we know that we can observe. It is not relevant if evolution works with whatever rule you invent or exist, what is interesting is the way you refuse to deal with the questions and would rather reach for straws just to protect your beloved theory of evolution.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 4:20am: Mac23 wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 3:05am: And by doing so destroyed the foundation of atheism. The "foundation" of atheism? There is no foundation. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God. This is a false statement, atheism is not only a lack of belief in a God or gods it also attempts to prove it, thus you have two lairs one demonstrates a blind faith in the non existence of the supernatural, the other claims to know or have evidence that the supernatural don't exist. Either version fails when confronted with Cause and Effect. Everything that Has a beginning MUST have a cause. God does not have a beginning thus need not have a cause. It is actually very simple. Mac23 wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 3:05am: it devastates his belief that there is no god, meaning there is no ultimate cause. Question for you: what caused God to exist? This is a logical fallacy. And no, sorry, I don't buy that special exemption you give to your God: I'm sorry that you don't accept the premise or definition of God, perhaps you can explain infinite regression as to why that is more logical than one being that have existed forever. As the argument goes. Because we began to exist we must be caused by something or someone that did not begin to exist. Mac23 wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 3:05am: God did not create Himself and God was not created. I was going to respond to all of your points individually, but it would be a waste of time. Here's the bottom line. Either: 1. Non-deterministic events can occur or 2. Everything has existed forever, and there is no ultimate cause. I'm personally leaning towards 1, because 2 sounds a little too much like the special exemption. While it appears to be true that everything in the natural world is governed by Cause and Effect, it appears that at the Planck scale, truly non-deterministic events can occur. I'm talking about quantum physics here. Such a random event would have been the origin of all matter an energy in the universe, and the cause of the Big Bang.[/color] Or 3. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. *********************** Quantum physics is a rather speculative and theoretical in nature, almost impossible to prove anything there, and you would rather cling to the faint hope that a random event (not governed by any laws) could happen rather than face the obvious that stares in our faces that Cause and Effect is real? Very interesting. *********************************** But let's assume your argument is valid, and that there must have been an "Ultimate Cause": By what logic do you conclude which God it was that exists and was that "Ultimate Cause"? Where is the evidence from which to conclude that it is the Christian God, or the Islamic God, or some other God? ********************* It is not relevant really to discuss what God at this point in the discussion. ****************************** Here's the kicker to all of this: It is a false argument to claim that evolution requires non-deterministic random events. Evolution works just fine with all genetic variations having a causal chain. Here's the kicker to your comment, we are not discussing evolution, just that the fact that there is no real random events happening in this world that we know that we can observe. It is not relevant if evolution works with whatever rule you invent or exist, what is interesting is the way you refuse to deal with the questions and would rather reach for straws just to protect your beloved theory of evolution.

Why would you expect to observe something that only exists  within the realm of concepts?
You don't see thoughts, but you would conclude they exist, right?

Its like saying 'inaccurate' does not exist, when in fact it exists in the absence of accuracy.  How else would you describe 'arrows on a target' that do not show a pattern or did not hit the bullseye??  How do you describe this inaccuracy that exists, even though there is no such THING as inaccurate?  The only thing that exists is accurate, inaccuracy exists once the outcome of 'arrows on a target' do not fit the definition of accurate.

SADLY, you can't tell us WHICH straws he is grabbing at.  You guys like to SAY a bunch of stuff, but never do you supply any evidence of what you say.  So, I will start discussing things in much the same way that you guys do and let's see how far it gets us. K

What is interesting is the way you refuse to deal with the questions and would rather reach for straws just to protect your beloved theory of supernatural beings.(Again, lets see how far this gets us.  If you ask for evidence of the straws you reach for, then you will see my point.)

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

We all know that Evodelusionists hate the idea of God and that life is under some form of control. They are often looking for ways to make up their own morals and ethics and not wanting some deity to make the rules for them. We all know that determinism is founded on "deity" in control.  And that this is the reason for all the nonsense. Determinism is based on deity.  It is a false premise.  Nothing is predetermined exactly but is the results of energy expressed.

I laugh at every post and get great enjoyment out of responding to each one.  What makes it fun is that is it so easy to prove you wrong, then watch you ban people when you can't prove them wrong because of your human emotional garbage.

Another fun thing is to watch you AVOID every question and topic that clearly proves you wrong, only for you to keep spewing mumbo jumbo in an attempt to get your point across.



Here, let me give an example, for I assume you will want proof:

The gentlemen above this post, that I am quoting you from, posted several definitions of 'determinism' and none of them mention a DEITY.  None of the definitions mentioned it. But yet you AVOID these definitions that prove you wrong, only so you can keep spewing mumbo jumbo in an attempt to get your point across.

The funny thing is............especially since YEC creationist on this site pointed out is................its the way you deal with these questions and definitions, then turn your head when you realize the implications of the answers just so you can reach at straws to help support the delusional belief in supernatural forces.  (At least that is what he said to someone he believed was avoiding questions, I assume this same logic will apply to you too; but only if you are honest.)

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 4:20am: The "foundation" of atheism? There is no foundation. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God. This is a false statement, atheism is not only a lack of belief in a God or gods it also attempts to prove it

I do not hold a belief in the existence of a God. I do not, however, try to disprove the existence of a God or gods. Am I, then, not an atheist? I am, after all without (a-) belief in God (theism). What label would you assign to me?


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

Either version fails when confronted with Cause and Effect. Everything that Has a beginning MUST have a cause.

I fail to see how Cause and Effect invalidates the position that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of the supernatural.



Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

God does not have a beginning thus need not have a cause. It is actually very simple.

Special pleading. Why does God get this exemption, and yet the Universe (or whatever it is that exists outside of our universe, from which our universe began) does not? Why must there have been a beginning to the existence of existence?




Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 4:20am: Question for you: what caused God to exist? This is a logical fallacy.

I don't see it as one... can you explain why it is?


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 4:20am: And no, sorry, I don't buy that special exemption you give to your God: I'm sorry that you don't accept the premise or definition of God, perhaps you can explain infinite regression as to why that is more logical than one being that have existed forever. As the argument goes. Because we began to exist we must be caused by something or someone that did not begin to exist.

First of all, who says we began to exist? I recognize that there is a beginning to the current state of the universe as we know it, but there is nothing that indicates that the universe didn't exist before that point. Secondly, why must it have been a "someone" and not a "something"? Why do you presuppose God?


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

Quantum physics is a rather speculative and theoretical in nature, almost impossible to prove anything there, and you would rather cling to the faint hope that a random event (not governed by any laws) could happen rather than face the obvious that stares in our faces that Cause and Effect is real? Very interesting.

Religion is a rather speculative and theoretical in nature, almost impossible to prove anything there, and you would rather cling to the faint hope that a supernatural entity exists rather than face the obvious that stares in our faces that there is no evidence of the supernatural being real? Very interesting.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

It is not relevant really to discuss what God at this point in the discussion.

Actually, yes, it is... because different religions ascribe different characteristics to their gods. How can we discuss what God is if we can't define him/her/it?


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

Here's the kicker to your comment, we are not discussing evolution, just that the fact that there is no real random events happening in this world that we know that we can observe. It is not relevant if evolution works with whatever rule you invent or exist, what is interesting is the way you refuse to deal with the questions and would rather reach for straws just to protect your beloved theory of evolution.

This whole board is about evolution. GSFY has presented the argument from non-existence of non-determinism as an argument against evolution. My point is that even if the premise is true, the argument fails to invalidate the theory of evolution. Additionally, I am not refusing to deal with the question - I am arguing that the premise is not true: non-deterministic events are observed. For example: radioactive decay of an individual atom.

The Theory of Evolution might some day be disproven... but this argument does not do so.

Major Atheist stated, "
SADLY, you can't tell us WHICH straws he is grabbing at.  You guys like to SAY a bunch of stuff, but never do you supply any evidence of what you say.  So, I will start discussing things in much the same way that you guys do and let's see how far it gets us. K"

RealScienceForMe, stated that he would rather believe in Quantum Physics Planc hypothesis of the presumed idea that may a non determined effect might happen. I should add that he implied a non caused effect. That is what I would call "Grasping for straws" He later contradicted this and asked the question of who says we began to exist, suggestion reincarnation (religious view) or perhaps even the immortality of the soul (also a religious view) Perhaps this was not what he meant but I would say that whatever man does to support their own belief disregarding observed evidence is in love with their theory. Of course if I have misunderstood the man I apologize to you and to him in advance.

If you have any form of evidence that is able to be demonstrated and tested without a doubt I would have to revisit my current paradigm.

You wrote also MajorAtheist, "
Why would you expect to observe something that only exists  within the realm of concepts?
You don't see thoughts, but you would conclude they exist, right?"

It is interesting that you as a Major Atheist, can I assume your a Strong Atheist or you would definitely be a Minor Atheist? (pun intended) That you would even ask me that question, for it is not possible to explain it from a materialistic view point, how did thought originate in a strictly material universe? Tell me this also, what is the mind?

However the question is false because, Cause and Effect is not just a concept it is observed and very testable. You can either ignore it as most atheists does or you can ask yourself the big questions. Why do you assume that we do not need an ultimate cause Do you know what it means to believe in an none caused universe? It would mean that you believe nothing can cause something. You have only two options, either the universe is caused by someone or it existed forever. If the universe have existed forever, then the Natural Laws must also have existed forever, if they exist forever then their effects must also have existed forever, if the effects of the Laws have been in effect forever it means that we cannot be here due to we would have reached the point of absolute heat death, due to the Entropy. If the universe existed forever life must always have existed as well, due to the Law of Bio-genesis.(and then we are in the realm of God again and you guys don't like that.) Now of course if you believe the 1st option you run into quite a few paradoxes as well so I don't know which of the two belief systems are the best, I will go for the third one, "Anything that has a beginning must have had a cause" This would include the Universe as I already explained.

Please you can argue however you want to argue, I just want some nice empirical facts on the table before I jump in and believe in them. Why do you believe Cause and Effect is wrong and or do not lead to the conclusion that every effect must have a cause? Including the First Effect?

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 9:31am: RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 4:20am: The "foundation" of atheism? There is no foundation. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God. This is a false statement, atheism is not only a lack of belief in a God or gods it also attempts to prove it I do not hold a belief in the existence of a God. I do not, however, try to disprove the existence of a God or gods. Am I, then, not an atheist? I am, after all without (a-) belief in God (theism). What label would you assign to me? Mac23 wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 9:31am: Either version fails when confronted with Cause and Effect. Everything that Has a beginning MUST have a cause. I fail to see how Cause and Effect invalidates the position that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Mac23 wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 9:31am: God does not have a beginning thus need not have a cause. It is actually very simple. Special pleading. Why does God get this exemption, and yet the Universe (or whatever it is that exists outside of our universe, from which our universe began) does not? Why must there have been a beginning to the existence of existence? Mac23 wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 9:31am: RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 4:20am: Question for you: what caused God to exist? This is a logical fallacy. I don't see it as one... can you explain why it is? Mac23 wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 9:31am: RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 4:20am: And no, sorry, I don't buy that special exemption you give to your God: I'm sorry that you don't accept the premise or definition of God, perhaps you can explain infinite regression as to why that is more logical than one being that have existed forever. As the argument goes. Because we began to exist we must be caused by something or someone that did not begin to exist. First of all, who says we began to exist? I recognize that there is a beginning to the current state of the universe as we know it, but there is nothing that indicates that the universe didn't exist before that point. Secondly, why must it have been a "someone" and not a "something"? Why do you presuppose God? Mac23 wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 9:31am: Quantum physics is a rather speculative and theoretical in nature, almost impossible to prove anything there, and you would rather cling to the faint hope that a random event (not governed by any laws) could happen rather than face the obvious that stares in our faces that Cause and Effect is real? Very interesting. Religion is a rather speculative and theoretical in nature, almost impossible to prove anything there, and you would rather cling to the faint hope that a supernatural entity exists rather than face the obvious that stares in our faces that there is no evidence of the supernatural being real? Very interesting. Mac23 wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 9:31am: It is not relevant really to discuss what God at this point in the discussion. Actually, yes, it is... because different religions ascribe different characteristics to their gods. How can we discuss what God is if we can't define him/her/it? Mac23 wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 9:31am: Here's the kicker to your comment, we are not discussing evolution, just that the fact that there is no real random events happening in this world that we know that we can observe. It is not relevant if evolution works with whatever rule you invent or exist, what is interesting is the way you refuse to deal with the questions and would rather reach for straws just to protect your beloved theory of evolution. This whole board is about evolution. GSFY has presented the argument from non-existence of non-determinism as an argument against evolution. My point is that even if the premise is true, the argument fails to invalidate the theory of evolution. Additionally, I am not refusing to deal with the question - I am arguing that the premise is not true: non-deterministic events are observed. For example: radioactive decay of an individual atom. The Theory of Evolution might some day be disproven... but this argument does not do so.

What YOU label yourself is not important really, that is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. What does matter is the fact that Atheism asserts either by blind faith or by doctrine that God does not exist.

Necessary causes:

If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

I propose that someone/something is necessary to cause us life this universe our existence, to happen.

This something or something is vastly powerful, organized, sentient, personal because we as humans possess similar traits and the fact that the universe has a vast potential for energy. It is not important to label who or what this powerful being power is at this point, just to recognize the fact that it is needed. Every other option is exhausted.

Cause and Effect begs the question was the FIRST effect not caused? If you say yes then you commit a logical fallacy by contradicting the premise. If you say yes then we can continue to discuss this, and then we can begin to identify who or what the Cause is. We just try now to establish that there was a Cause to the First effect.

If you for some reason still want to discuss if there was a First effect then sure we can do that. Even though I feel I have given a good enough reply as to why there must be a First effect.

Anyway, I can't force you guys to see things my way just saying that I don't agree with your arguments thus far as I do not find them logically sound.

Take care.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

RealScienceForMe, stated that he would rather believe in Quantum Physics Planc hypothesis of the presumed idea that may a non determined effect might happen. I should add that he implied a non caused effect. That is what I would call "Grasping for straws"

And the belief that an un-caused God exists isn't "Grasping at Straws"? My preference towards the existence of non-deterministic events is a conclusion reached through the application of Occam's Razor - the explanation with the fewest unsupported assumptions is the most likely.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

He later contradicted this and asked the question of who says we began to exist, suggestion reincarnation (religious view) or perhaps even the immortality of the soul (also a religious view)

Ever heard of a "Devil's Advocate" argument? And no, I NEVER mentioned reincarnation or immortality of the soul, so don't put words in my mouth. I do not believe in the existence of a soul, so why would I have suggested such things?


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

Perhaps this was not what he meant

Not only is it not what I meant, it is not what I said. You applied your own religious beliefs to my statement, reaching a conclusion that was never indicated or implied.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

but I would say that whatever man does to support their own belief disregarding observed evidence is in love with their theory.

Look in the mirror often? Show me the evidence I am disregarding - if you can.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

Why do you assume that we do not need an ultimate cause

Because the evidence indicates that non-caused events are possible. Radioactive decay, for example.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

Do you know what it means to believe in an none caused universe? It would mean that you believe nothing can cause something.

And where's the problem with that?


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

You have only two options, either the universe is caused by someone or it existed forever.

Why limit existence to this universe? If our universe is the effect of some cause in the larger "extraverse", then that cause need not be a "someone" - but we don't have enough information to know what it was. It very well could have been an un-caused cause - a truly random event in the "extraverse".

And before you jump on me for this "extraverse" concept, I'd like to point out that it makes more sense than believing in the existence of a supernatural entity, because even that "extraverse" would still be part of natural existence. For me, this "extraverse" is a hypothesis. For you, your God is an unshakeable belief.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

If the universe have existed forever, then the Natural Laws must also have existed forever, if they exist forever then their effects must also have existed forever, if the effects of the Laws have been in effect forever it means that we cannot be here due to we would have reached the point of absolute heat death, due to the Entropy.

False premise, false conclusion. We know that this universe has not existed in its present form forever. Whether it existed in some other form before the Big Bang is, at present, unknowable. Since we do exist, and the universe has not reached heat death due to entropy, we know that the effects of the Natural Laws have not been in effect forever, but only since the Big Bang. We have know way of knowing whether these Natural Laws existed before the Big Bang.



Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

If the universe existed forever life must always have existed as well, due to the Law of Bio-genesis.(and then we are in the realm of God again and you guys don't like that.)

That's a non-sequitur. The Law of Biogenesis says that organisms cannot spontaneously appear, fully formed, from non-living matter. It says nothing about gradual formation of organic molecules and the subsequent formation of self-reproducing organisms. To claim that life must have always existed is a false conclusion.



Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

Now of course if you believe the 1st option you run into quite a few paradoxes as well

Really? what paradoxes would one run into?


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

so I don't know which of the two belief systems are the best, I will go for the third one, "Anything that has a beginning must have had a cause" This would include the Universe as I already explained.

But why the jump from "a cause" to "God did it"?

I'll stick with my conclusion - supported by evidence: non-caused causes must exist.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 2:20pm:

What YOU label yourself is not important really, that is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. What does matter is the fact that Atheism asserts either by blind faith or by doctrine that God does not exist.

I disagree with your definition of atheism.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 2:20pm:

If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

Once must first prove that x is a necessary cause of y.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 2:20pm:

I propose that someone/something is necessary to cause us life this universe our existence, to happen.

For the sake of argument, I tentatively accept the premise that the causal chain that is our universe as we know it must have had an initial cause. I withhold judgement on the nature of that cause.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 2:20pm:

This something or something is vastly powerful, organized, sentient, personal because we as humans possess similar traits

Wow, that's a whole lot of unsupported assumption. Provide evidence - ANY evidence - to indicate that such an entity would posess those attributes?


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 2:20pm:

It is not important to label who or what this powerful being power is at this point, just to recognize the fact that it is needed. Every other option is exhausted.

I disagree that every other option is exhausted - you have simply dismissed every other option out of hand, and by fiat declared your entity to be needed.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 2:20pm:

Cause and Effect begs the question was the FIRST effect not caused?

I hate it when people misuse "begs the question". You should have said "leads to the question".


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 2:20pm:

If you say yes then you commit a logical fallacy by contradicting the premise.

And if you say that God is uncaused, you commit the exact same logical fallacy.

Which means that the premise is incorrect - there must be uncaused causes.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

Major Atheist stated, " SADLY, you can't tell us WHICH straws he is grabbing at.  You guys like to SAY a bunch of stuff, but never do you supply any evidence of what you say.  So, I will start discussing things in much the same way that you guys do and let's see how far it gets us. K" RealScienceForMe, stated that he would rather believe in Quantum Physics Planc hypothesis of the presumed idea that may a non determined effect might happen. I should add that he implied a non caused effect. That is what I would call "Grasping for straws" He later contradicted this and asked the question of who says we began to exist, suggestion reincarnation (religious view) or perhaps even the immortality of the soul (also a religious view) Perhaps this was not what he meant but I would say that whatever man does to support their own belief disregarding observed evidence is in love with their theory. Of course if I have misunderstood the man I apologize to you and to him in advance. If you have any form of evidence that is able to be demonstrated and tested without a doubt I would have to revisit my current paradigm. You wrote also MajorAtheist, " Why would you expect to observe something that only exists  within the realm of concepts? You don't see thoughts, but you would conclude they exist, right?" It is interesting that you as a Major Atheist, can I assume your a Strong Atheist or you would definitely be a Minor Atheist? (pun intended) That you would even ask me that question, for it is not possible to explain it from a materialistic view point, how did thought originate in a strictly material universe? Tell me this also, what is the mind? However the question is false because, Cause and Effect is not just a concept it is observed and very testable. You can either ignore it as most atheists does or you can ask yourself the big questions. Why do you assume that we do not need an ultimate cause Do you know what it means to believe in an none caused universe? It would mean that you believe nothing can cause something. You have only two options, either the universe is caused by someone or it existed forever. If the universe have existed forever, then the Natural Laws must also have existed forever, if they exist forever then their effects must also have existed forever, if the effects of the Laws have been in effect forever it means that we cannot be here due to we would have reached the point of absolute heat death, due to the Entropy. If the universe existed forever life must always have existed as well, due to the Law of Bio-genesis.(and then we are in the realm of God again and you guys don't like that.) Now of course if you believe the 1st option you run into quite a few paradoxes as well so I don't know which of the two belief systems are the best, I will go for the third one, "Anything that has a beginning must have had a cause" This would include the Universe as I already explained. Please you can argue however you want to argue, I just want some nice empirical facts on the table before I jump in and believe in them. Why do you believe Cause and Effect is wrong and or do not lead to the conclusion that every effect must have a cause? Including the First Effect?

Well, I completely understand now and thank you for your clarification.

No matter if we can explain a thought from a materialistic viewpoint or not, my question was whether you need to observe something, that exists as a concept of the physical, in order to believe it exists?



Quote:

how did thought originate in a strictly material universe?/quote] AGain, I did not ask for an explanation, I asked whether you could believe in things, such as thoughts or inaccurate, even though they cannot be seen. [quote]Tell me this also, what is the mind?/quote] Sure, even though you did not answer my questions, but ok. The mind is: the subconscious and the conscious mental activity of an organism.............as it percieves, feels, thinks, reasons, etc. [quote]However the question is false because, Cause and Effect is not just a concept it is observed and very testable. You can either ignore it as most atheists does or you can ask yourself the big questions./quote] I never denied it Cause and Effect exists even though it is a concept, and I am not aware of any atheists that deny cause and effect.  You cleverly avoided my questions, as does GSFY, to go onto your ramblings. And I sometimes wonder why you guys avoid answering the big questions? [quote]Why do you assume that we do not need an ultimate cause

Ultimate cause or cause?  Please define what the difference would be?  Are you trying to equate 'ultimate' with 'supernatural'?

Since I believe this world is cause and effect, why would I deny a cause to this universe? I never did.  Some how you did not read what I wrote or took it out of context.



Quote:

It would mean that you believe nothing can cause something.

Yes it would..............IF I BELIEVED THAT!!!  But again, I have never denied this universe works within a cause and effect relationship.



Quote:

You have only two options, either the universe is caused by someone or it existed forever.

The universe was caused by SOMETHING and until you have evidence that a person/being created it, Im really not inclined to believe what you cannot prove.




Quote:

If the universe have existed forever, then the Natural Laws must also have existed forever, if they exist forever then their effects must also have existed forever, if the effects of the Laws have been in effect forever it means that we cannot be here due to we would have reached the point of absolute heat death, due to the Entropy. If the universe existed forever life must always have existed as well, due to the Law of Bio-genesis.(and then we are in the realm of God again and you guys don't like that.)

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! I believe in cause and effect and as far as I know there is a thing called the big bang, which was the beginning of the universe as we know it. It has not existed forever.




Quote:

Now of course if you believe the 1st option you run into quite a few paradoxes as well so I don't know which of the two belief systems are the best, I will go for the third one, "Anything that has a beginning must have had a cause" This would include the Universe as I already explained.

Well, we believe that SOMETHING caused the universe, but would believe that SOMEONE did, if we had evidence of WHO that person/being was.

I wonder why your viewpoint of creation is jaded by WHO?  Why do you assume a WHO created the universe instead a WHAT?



Quote:

Please you can argue however you want to argue, I just want some nice empirical facts on the table before I jump in and believe in them.

This question is false, since it takes millions of years for evolution to take place.
So, you can keep asking for evidence that you KNOW does not need to exist, since no evolutionists is crazy enough to ONLY consider the evidence he can see.

Right!  Is that the reason you did not answer my question about the THOUGHT.  Because if you would have said "YES", I beleive in things I cant see, then you would stop asking for empirical evidence for something that takes millions of years(can't be seen).




Quote:

Why do you believe Cause and Effect is wrong and or do not lead to the conclusion that every effect must have a cause?

I never said it was wrong.  I believe in cause and effect.  I just don't try my best to make SUPERNATURAL causes out of natural causes!

You misread what I wrote! I just don't know if you did not read it clearly or did it on purpose!

So both Major Atheist and RealScienceForMe have explained that they believe in an ultimate cause, excellent and congratulations you are no longer atheists. =) It is by the way not my definition but Websters Definition. Atheism asserts a meaningless origin, a non caused accident that nothing did, that is the naked atheism up close and personal, you have however a great variety of people believing they know what it means to have a non caused origin. Anyway, please read on and I do not mean any disrespect to you guys or any other atheist out there. It is just my experience that the atheist rarely know what atheism is.

Now that we have established that the first effect had a cause we can begin establishing the nature of that cause.

The cause must be able to consciously induce the effect, thus it cannot be random. Random in this sense would mean a non-determined action that did not have any origin in any physical or meta physical law that we know or don't know of. Meaning, if you were to argue it was random you will end up with questions why did it happen? And what caused that event to happen etc etc ad nauseum. The act of creating the laws in the universe had to be a choice made by someone with the ability to choose simply because that is the only viable option. As choice was part of it anything without this ability could not do it as that itself had to be acted upon by something that knew what it was doing. Especially since the laws of physics were not existing, as RSFM stated "...The Big Bang... universe had a beginning" Then we speak of O. Razor, do we follow the line of Cause and Effect or do we invent a multi universe that only moves the question backwards a.k.a infinite regression? Let us jump straight to the source, the cause of the first effect transcend any event that happened after it.

To sum it up in easier terms.

1) The first effect had to be consciously affected by something or someone that knew what they were doing else we end up at infinite regression and violate the rule of Causation.

2) As the first effect was caused by something or someone by choice, meaning not random, we can deduce that it was a meaningful action. (One can argue that the action was purposely inflicted yet unaware, but that begs the question why the laws of physics are so fine tuned)

3) Due to the amount of power and energy existing we can further deduce that the someone or something that caused the first effect and thus creating the universe is vastly powerful.

4) As it is highly unreasonable to assume that something inorganic can create life due to Pasteur's Germ theory and Spontaneous generation, it is probable that whatever caused the first effect to be alive. Thus the statement "Life begets Life" is established. Life have always existed and will always exist in one form or the other, just like energy.

5) Due to our own sentient capabilities and reasoning abilities it is more likely that we have been created with purpose and intent. rather than we having developed such abilities from a state of unaware without intention and purpose.

Last, like I said one assumption is just as good as the next and O.Razor does indeed lend support the statement of God rather than the statement of evolution. At least to me.


The point was anyway to help you guys see that you are making religious statements to support your conjectures in order to support your pet theory of evolution. Glad you finally admitted that the first effect did have a cause, and thus you have invalidated your atheism. Maybe you did not understand what it was you were doing when you did it but be honest with yourself. =) Keep thinking about this for the time to come and I'm sure you will have a change of paradigms.

I do not believe I have all the answers, I just like to explore the options that we have. If you believe mankind could evolve thinking abilities by themselves then you need to prove this otherwise it is more logical to think it was inherited by whoever made us. I can think because I'm human, I cannot think because my ancestors is believed to be "monkeys". Maybe you see the difference, it does make sense to me anyway.


Peace guys.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 7:20am:

Quote: So both Major Atheist and RealScienceForMe have explained that they believe in an ultimate cause, excellent and congratulations you are no longer atheists. =) It is by the way not my definition but Websters Definition. WHAHAH!  SADLY we explained that we believe in a 'cause', not an 'ultimate cause'.  But people that are scared of definitions and reality will twist  these definitions each and every time.  You are proving me right! [quote]Atheism asserts a meaningless origin, a non caused accident that nothing did,

Ummm, read above. You can keep lying all you want, but it only shows that you are either too scared or too dumb to understand.

How can we believe this universe was NOT caused, even though there is evidence of a cause and effect relationship.  WE can't; therefore you lie!







Quote:

Anyway, please read on and I do not mean any disrespect to you guys or any other atheist out there. It is just my experience that the atheist rarely know what atheism is.

SADLY, you are proving that you don't know what it means. Atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in theism.  Aunicornism is only a lack of beliefs in unicorns; whereas unicornism would be the belief in them.

But notice whether you believe or not..........has nothing to do with how or if they were created, huh? LMAO!  SEE what i mean.  If you don't, then I will question your intelligence.  Don't take it too personally.  Its just that Religious believers are very keen on twisting the definitions of words to promote their agenda, since it can't stand on its own merits!






Quote:

Now that we have established that the first effect had a cause we can begin establishing the nature of that cause.

WHAHAHAH!   Ahhhh, now you only want to establish a 'cause', but fail to realize your first posts referred to an 'ultimate cause'.

Suddenly, NOW and according to the statement above, you want to find the nature of the cause, instead of the nature of the 'ultimate cause.'




Quote:

The cause must be able to consciously induce the effect, thus it cannot be random.

First, if wind caused the tree to grow crooked, this cause of the tree growing crooked has no conscience, right or wrong?  If I am wrong, then prove the wind has a conscience.  If I am right, then the wind does not have to consciously do anything, for the mere presence of the wind can cause the tree not to grow straight.



Quote:

Random in this sense would mean a non-determined action that did not have any origin in any physical or meta physical law that we know or don't know of. Meaning, if you were to argue it was random you will end up with questions why did it happen?

Ummm, that is a part of RANDOM!  Not knowing which physical forces were applied and to what degree, proves the outcome is random when you can't predict with 100% accuracy!






Quote:

And what caused that event to happen etc etc ad nauseum. The act of creating the laws in the universe had to be a choice made by someone with the ability to choose simply because that is the only viable option.

We have no evidence of this.  But you can believe in things that have no evidence if you want.  Your choice, but don't get mad when people laugh at your beliefs that you CANT back up with evidence!

The laws of this universe had to be caused, but we don't know WHAT caused them.   Keep being biased by asking WHO created them.  Up to you!



Quote:

As choice was part of it anything without this ability could not do it as that itself had to be acted upon by something that knew what it was doing.

A choice was not part of it, but a cause was.  Let's see if you can back up what you believe or will we find out that you have nothing and its complete hogwash!




Quote:

Especially since the laws of physics were not existing, as RSFM stated "...The Big Bang... universe had a beginning" Then we speak of O. Razor, do we follow the line of Cause and Effect or do we invent a multi universe that only moves the question backwards a.k.a infinite regression? Let us jump straight to the source, the cause of the first effect transcend any event that happened after it. To sum it up in easier terms. 1) The first effect had to be consciously affected by something or someone that knew what they were doing else we end up at infinite regression and violate the rule of Causation.

Since we have no evidence of anyone being around and since we have no evidence of anyone CAUSING this universe to come into existence it is ridiculous to claim that someone did.




Quote:

2) As the first effect was caused by something or someone by choice, meaning not random, we can deduce that it was a meaningful action. (One can argue that the action was purposely inflicted yet unaware, but that begs the question why the laws of physics are so fine tuned)

Ahhhh, now you are getting there and hopefully getting away from your biased posts.  SEE, how you now say "As the first effect was caused by SOMETHING......"?????

If someTHING caused it and if this someTHING did not have a conscience, this would lead people to believe that this universe did not come into existence by immaterial conscious thoughts, it came into existence because of physical 'cause and effect'.


Quote:

3) Due to the amount of power and energy existing we can further deduce that the someone or something that caused the first effect and thus creating the universe is vastly powerful.

Due to the amount of power and energy we can further deduce that there is a lot of power and energy.  This energy may be weak, but due to the massive amounts of it, it could appear powerful, cumulatively.






Quote:

4) As it is highly unreasonable to assume that something inorganic can create life due to Pasteur's Germ theory and Spontaneous generation, it is probable that whatever caused the first effect to be alive. Thus the statement "Life begets Life" is established. Life have always existed and will always exist in one form or the other, just like energy

.

If whatever created life is actually alive, then you can't deduce that it is above time/space, since nothing alive is above time/space.

If whatever created life is actually alive, then you can't say that God created life, since God is not living!

SEE, you religious believers work yourself into a circle each time!


Quote:

5) Due to our own sentient capabilities and reasoning abilities it is more likely that we have been created with purpose and intent. rather than we having developed such abilities from a state of unaware without intention and purpose.

When you reduce things to cause and effect........the effect is the purpose of the cause.





Quote:

Last, like I said one assumption is just as good as the next and O.Razor does indeed lend support the statement of God rather than the statement of evolution. At least to me.

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result



Quote:

The point was anyway to help you guys see that you are making religious statements to support your conjectures in order to support your pet theory of evolution. Glad you finally admitted that the first effect did have a cause, and thus you have invalidated your atheism. Maybe you did not understand what it was you were doing when you did it but be honest with yourself. =) Keep thinking about this for the time to come and I'm sure you will have a change of paradigms.

WHAHAH!  Just because this world is cause and effect, does not mean that atheists can't admit that this universe was caused by SOMETHING.  But again, until we find evidence of exactly what that cause is............it is ridiculous to reduce it to things you can't back up.

But FEAR will make you do those kinds of things!

So, no we have not invalidated our atheism, you have ONLY twisted (cause and effect)..........to mean that we know it to be caused by a God, of which you have no evidence for!





Quote:

I do not believe I have all the answers, I just like to explore the options that we have. If you believe mankind could evolve thinking abilities by themselves then you need to prove this otherwise it is more logical to think it was inherited by whoever made us. I can think because I'm human, I cannot think because my ancestors is believed to be "monkeys". Maybe you see the difference, it does make sense to me anyway.

And you ONLY explore the options within a dogmatic paradigm. Closed mindedness!

Ok, but once I prove it, what does it mean when you CANT beleive it.  Will that prove you are not smart enough to understand or too FEARful to understand?????????


Sure you can SAY that I am too stupid or too scared to believe you, but YET I bet you can't find in an atheists book of where it promises to punish me if I don't believe in it.

Read Sam Harris, Dawkins, etc.  Do ANY of them talk about being punished for NOT believing in them?

So, why does your God promise to punish you for not believing in him, then why is it a mystery as to why you CANT believe us????

I am just happy that you put that answer on here.  It shows anyone with a brain just what happens when delusional religious beliefs, based on nothing are in charge of one's mind.

Once you surrender to mass hysteria, this is what you get.

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 11:50am:

Mac23 wrote on Feb 17th, 2010 at 7:20am: Quote: So both Major Atheist and RealScienceForMe have explained that they believe in an ultimate cause, excellent and congratulations you are no longer atheists. =) It is by the way not my definition but Websters Definition. WHAHAH!  SADLY we explained that we believe in a 'cause', not an 'ultimate cause'.  But people that are scared of definitions and reality will twist  these definitions each and every time.  You are proving me right! [quote]Atheism asserts a meaningless origin, a non caused accident that nothing did, Ummm, read above. You can keep lying all you want, but it only shows that you are either too scared or too dumb to understand. How can we believe this universe was NOT caused, even though there is evidence of a cause and effect relationship.  WE can't; therefore you lie! [quote] Anyway, please read on and I do not mean any disrespect to you guys or any other atheist out there. It is just my experience that the atheist rarely know what atheism is.

SADLY, you are proving that you don't know what it means. Atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in theism.  Aunicornism is only a lack of beliefs in unicorns; whereas unicornism would be the belief in them.

But notice whether you believe or not..........has nothing to do with how or if they were created, huh? LMAO!  SEE what i mean.  If you don't, then I will question your intelligence.  Don't take it too personally.  Its just that Religious believers are very keen on twisting the definitions of words to promote their agenda, since it can't stand on its own merits!






Quote:

Now that we have established that the first effect had a cause we can begin establishing the nature of that cause.

WHAHAHAH!   Ahhhh, now you only want to establish a 'cause', but fail to realize your first posts referred to an 'ultimate cause'.

Suddenly, NOW and according to the statement above, you want to find the nature of the cause, instead of the nature of the 'ultimate cause.'




Quote:

The cause must be able to consciously induce the effect, thus it cannot be random.

First, if wind caused the tree to grow crooked, this cause of the tree growing crooked has no conscience, right or wrong?  If I am wrong, then prove the wind has a conscience.  If I am right, then the wind does not have to consciously do anything, for the mere presence of the wind can cause the tree not to grow straight.



Quote:

Random in this sense would mean a non-determined action that did not have any origin in any physical or meta physical law that we know or don't know of. Meaning, if you were to argue it was random you will end up with questions why did it happen?

Ummm, that is a part of RANDOM!  Not knowing which physical forces were applied and to what degree, proves the outcome is random when you can't predict with 100% accuracy!






Quote:

And what caused that event to happen etc etc ad nauseum. The act of creating the laws in the universe had to be a choice made by someone with the ability to choose simply because that is the only viable option.

We have no evidence of this.  But you can believe in things that have no evidence if you want.  Your choice, but don't get mad when people laugh at your beliefs that you CANT back up with evidence!

The laws of this universe had to be caused, but we don't know WHAT caused them.   Keep being biased by asking WHO created them.  Up to you!



Quote:

As choice was part of it anything without this ability could not do it as that itself had to be acted upon by something that knew what it was doing.

A choice was not part of it, but a cause was.  Let's see if you can back up what you believe or will we find out that you have nothing and its complete hogwash!




Quote:

Especially since the laws of physics were not existing, as RSFM stated "...The Big Bang... universe had a beginning" Then we speak of O. Razor, do we follow the line of Cause and Effect or do we invent a multi universe that only moves the question backwards a.k.a infinite regression? Let us jump straight to the source, the cause of the first effect transcend any event that happened after it. To sum it up in easier terms. 1) The first effect had to be consciously affected by something or someone that knew what they were doing else we end up at infinite regression and violate the rule of Causation.

Since we have no evidence of anyone being around and since we have no evidence of anyone CAUSING this universe to come into existence it is ridiculous to claim that someone did.




Quote:

2) As the first effect was caused by something or someone by choice, meaning not random, we can deduce that it was a meaningful action. (One can argue that the action was purposely inflicted yet unaware, but that begs the question why the laws of physics are so fine tuned)

Ahhhh, now you are getting there and hopefully getting away from your biased posts.  SEE, how you now say "As the first effect was caused by SOMETHING......"?????

If someTHING caused it and if this someTHING did not have a conscience, this would lead people to believe that this universe did not come into existence by immaterial conscious thoughts, it came into existence because of physical 'cause and effect'.


Quote:

3) Due to the amount of power and energy existing we can further deduce that the someone or something that caused the first effect and thus creating the universe is vastly powerful.

Due to the amount of power and energy we can further deduce that there is a lot of power and energy.  This energy may be weak, but due to the massive amounts of it, it could appear powerful, cumulatively.






Quote:

4) As it is highly unreasonable to assume that something inorganic can create life due to Pasteur's Germ theory and Spontaneous generation, it is probable that whatever caused the first effect to be alive. Thus the statement "Life begets Life" is established. Life have always existed and will always exist in one form or the other, just like energy

.

If whatever created life is actually alive, then you can't deduce that it is above time/space, since nothing alive is above time/space.

If whatever created life is actually alive, then you can't say that God created life, since God is not living!

SEE, you religious believers work yourself into a circle each time!


Quote:

5) Due to our own sentient capabilities and reasoning abilities it is more likely that we have been created with purpose and intent. rather than we having developed such abilities from a state of unaware without intention and purpose.

When you reduce things to cause and effect........the effect is the purpose of the cause.





Quote:

Last, like I said one assumption is just as good as the next and O.Razor does indeed lend support the statement of God rather than the statement of evolution. At least to me.

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result



Quote:

The point was anyway to help you guys see that you are making religious statements to support your conjectures in order to support your pet theory of evolution. Glad you finally admitted that the first effect did have a cause, and thus you have invalidated your atheism. Maybe you did not understand what it was you were doing when you did it but be honest with yourself. =) Keep thinking about this for the time to come and I'm sure you will have a change of paradigms.

WHAHAH!  Just because this world is cause and effect, does not mean that atheists can't admit that this universe was caused by SOMETHING.  But again, until we find evidence of exactly what that cause is............it is ridiculous to reduce it to things you can't back up.

But FEAR will make you do those kinds of things!

So, no we have not invalidated our atheism, you have ONLY twisted (cause and effect)..........to mean that we know it to be caused by a God, of which you have no evidence for!





Quote:

I do not believe I have all the answers, I just like to explore the options that we have. If you believe mankind could evolve thinking abilities by themselves then you need to prove this otherwise it is more logical to think it was inherited by whoever made us. I can think because I'm human, I cannot think because my ancestors is believed to be "monkeys". Maybe you see the difference, it does make sense to me anyway.

And you ONLY explore the options within a dogmatic paradigm. Closed mindedness!

Ok, but once I prove it, what does it mean when you CANT beleive it.  Will that prove you are not smart enough to understand or too FEARful to understand?????????


Sure you can SAY that I am too stupid or too scared to believe you, but YET I bet you can't find in an atheists book of where it promises to punish me if I don't believe in it.

Read Sam Harris, Dawkins, etc.  Do ANY of them talk about being punished for NOT believing in them?

So, why does your God promise to punish you for not believing in him, then why is it a mystery as to why you CANT believe us????[/quote]

Apparently you are opposed to the law of Karma?  Which is a law of physics.  "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

In other words we punish ourselves by our actions. If you want to stop punishing yourself, you need guidance on how to stop that.

1/ If you don't want to be lied to, stop lying to yourself and to others.

2/If you don't want physical pain, stop beating other people.

3/ If you want peace love and understanding, start being an example of that.

4/ If you want respect, be respectful.

5/ If you want love, be loving.

6/ If you want compassion, be compassionate.

7/ If you want the truth, then seek that instead of your f**ked up beliefs and projecting those on the world.

8/ If you want to be free, be free and stop taking on other people's beliefs, and allowing them to own you.