Closing the thread and threatening to ban people does not make your argument correct.

[quote author=585D545057390]When you start with insults and lies, you open yourself to my attack. You are doing this to yourself.[/quote]

The only person doing any insulting or lying is you, GSFY.

[quote author=585D545057390]Carbon is not Diamonds, because it has been completely transformed into diamonds and is not edible by any bacteria.[/quote]

True, not all carbon is diamond... but all diamonds are carbon. The fact that diamond cannot be digested by bacteria (at least, none that we know of yet) has nothing at all to do with whether or not diamond is carbon.

[quote author=585D545057390]That is the facts.[/quote]

No, that's not the facts, no matter how much you want them to be. The fact is that diamond is a lattice structure of carbon atoms. No amount of threats or insults will change that fact.

You don't get to make up your own criteria for whether or not something is carbon and expect the world to accept them. You also don't get to make up your own definitions for random, evolution, or anything else - and since that's all you do here, that pretty much makes every post you make in this forum a superb example of "crybaby desperation".

If you want to disprove the Theory of Evolution, please feel free to try... but do so using real science, not your made up version of it. Be prepared to suggest an alternative explanation for the vast body of evidence - and make sure that explanation takes into account all of that evidence, not just select bits. If you manage to do this, you will get the attention you seem to crave.

Go for it.

Dab33r wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 6:23pm:

Closing the thread and threatening to ban people does not make your argument correct. [quote author=585D545057390]When you start with insults and lies, you open yourself to my attack. You are doing this to yourself.

The only person doing any insulting or lying is you, GSFY.

[quote author=585D545057390]Carbon is not Diamonds, because it has been completely transformed into diamonds and is not edible by any bacteria.[/quote]

True, not all carbon is diamond... but all diamonds are carbon. The fact that diamond cannot be digested by bacteria (at least, none that we know of yet) has nothing at all to do with whether or not diamond is carbon.

[quote author=585D545057390]That is the facts.[/quote]

No, that's not the facts, no matter how much you want them to be. The fact is that diamond is a lattice structure of carbon atoms. No amount of threats or insults will change that fact.

You don't get to make up your own criteria for whether or not something is carbon and expect the world to accept them. You also don't get to make up your own definitions for random, evolution, or anything else - and since that's all you do here, that pretty much makes every post you make in this forum a superb example of "crybaby desperation".

If you want to disprove the Theory of Evolution, please feel free to try... but do so using real science, not your made up version of it. Be prepared to suggest an alternative explanation for the vast body of evidence - and make sure that explanation takes into account all of that evidence, not just select bits. If you manage to do this, you will get the attention you seem to crave.

Go for it.[/quote]

=========================================================================================

This whole nonsense argument is about the fact that bacteria will digest any carbon based matter.  Apparently you are too lazy to read the posts on this site.

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1259177739

This moron revealed how weak and stupid he is in this thread. He says he is a PHD in some genetic field and is this stupid.

I never tell lies, no do I mislead. That is the domain of delusional believers in nonsense religions like Evodelusionism.

Hey banhappy, what rule did I break this time? Oh yeah, I criticized you. So f**king what. Grow up and take it like a man.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:

This whole nonsense argument is about the fact that bacteria will digest any carbon based matter.

Where is it written that bacteria can and will digest any carbon based matter? This is another belief you hold even though it is not absolutely proven.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:

Apparently you are too lazy to read the posts on this site.

No, I read it, I just don't agree with your conclusions. Either way, you've explicitly repeated the claim several times in this thread that diamonds are not carbon. Either way, that claim is wrong. Admit it, and let's move on.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:

I never tell lies, no do I mislead.

Never tell lies? nonsense. You claim evolution is a religion. That is a lie. You claim that you believe only that which is absolutely proven. That's either a lie, or you're just wrong - your choice. You never mislead? nonsense. You claim that you are scientifically competent. You also claim that the rest of the world is scientifically incompetent. You also make up your own definitions - a big mislead.

I'm sure you'll ban me again for this post, but I don't really give a garbage. Nothing I say, or anyone else says, will ever penetrate that wall you've constructed between yourself and observable reality.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 4:59am:

Hey banhappy, what rule did I break this time? Oh yeah, I criticized you. So f**king what. Grow up and take it like a man. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 11:43pm: This whole nonsense argument is about the fact that bacteria will digest any carbon based matter.  Where is it written that bacteria can and will digest any carbon based matter? This is another belief you hold even though it is not absolutely proven.

In every science text on bacteria.  Bacteria lives off organic matter and all organic matter is carbon based. Even photosynthesis is using carbon dioxide and converting it to food for bacteria.  Nylon is made from naturally occuring carbon and in the process of making nylon it is converted to an edible food for bacteria, OBVIOUSLY.

Bacteria adapts to survive as the same creature. It has never evolved. They have found 60 and 40 million year old bacteria suspended in air tight nature resins that reanimated after being released. AND they are a recognizable strains of bacteria.  I already posted the articles on the Nylon thread.

There is no such thing as evolution.  In order to have evolution the creatures would need to evolve into a new creature.

Without bacteria all life as we know it will die. This is why it never has evolved.  It must adapt as bacteria to keep life on earth going.  There exists more bacteria cells in your body than human cells. Don't you know this? 


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:

Apparently you are too lazy to read the posts on this site.

No, I read it, I just don't agree with your conclusions. Either way, you've explicitly repeated the claim several times in this thread that diamonds are not carbon. Either way, that claim is wrong. Admit it, and let's move on.[/quote]

Diamonds are not edible carbon. That is what I have repeated over and over.  It is not a form that bacteria seem to eat.



GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:

I never tell lies, no do I mislead.

Never tell lies? nonsense. You claim evolution is a religion. That is a lie. You claim that you believe only that which is absolutely proven. That's either a lie, or you're just wrong - your choice. You never mislead? nonsense. You claim that you are scientifically competent. You also claim that the rest of the world is scientifically incompetent. You also make up your own definitions - a big mislead.

I'm sure you'll ban me again for this post, but I don't really give a feculence. Nothing I say, or anyone else says, will ever penetrate that wall you've constructed between yourself and observable reality.
[/quote]

Evolution is a religion because it is based on faith and belief.
IN the indoctrination they use religious slogans that have never been tested even once to see if they are real. These slogans like "evolutionary  pressure" have never passed one experiment.   "random mutations" is another untested religious belief.
I have a list of all these untested slogans. I was waiting for you to bring them up one at a time as your evidence, so I could teach you about this.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

In every science text on bacteria.  Bacteria lives off organic matter and all organic matter is carbon based.

I concede that all bacteria require carbon for survival - however, not all bacteria consume organic carbon. Iron-oxidizing bacteria, for example, require inorganic carbon, e.g. carbon dioxide.

This is not the same, however, as saying that all carbon can be digested by bacteria! This is a false conclusion that is unsupported by the evidence!


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

Even photosynthesis is using carbon dioxide and converting it to food for bacteria.  Nylon is made from naturally occuring carbon and in the process of making nylon it is converted to an edible food for bacteria, OBVIOUSLY.

False. Prior to the development of nylonase, there were no bacteria that could digest nylon, therefore the process of making nylon does not convert the nylon to an edible food for bacteria.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

Bacteria adapts to survive as the same creature. It has never evolved.

This is a ridiculous statement. The fact that different strains of bacteria exist in different environments - for example, iron-oxidizing bacteria thrive in iron-rich environments but cannot survive in sulfur-rich environments, and bacteria that thrive in our guts cannot survive in iron-rich environments. The development of these different strains is evolution!


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

There is no such thing as evolution.  In order to have evolution the creatures would need to evolve into a new creature.

This is a straw man argument. First of all, no individual creature ever evolves into a new creature. Secondly, "new creature" is so poorly defined that it can be argued against in at least two different ways: if we interpret it loosly, the theory of evolution does not predict such transitions, it only predicts divergence in a family of organisms; and if we interpret it strictly, every creature is itself a new creature, as it is genetically unique, and thus distinct from all other creatures.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

Without bacteria all life as we know it will die. This is why it never has evolved.  It must adapt as bacteria to keep life on earth going.  There exists more bacteria cells in your body than human cells. Don't you know this?

So what? What does this have to do with evolution or our discussion about diamonds and carbon? You're dodging the issue...


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

Diamonds are not edible carbon. That is what I have repeated over and over.  It is not a form that bacteria seem to eat.

Really? That's what your claim has always been? Let's go back and look:


Quote:

The fact is you cannot reduce a diamond back to carbon.  It requires almost a fusion effect of heat and pressure to change it to a crystal lattice.

Quote:

I use carbon in my work. Diamond do not work because they are diamonds and not carbon. Go to a jeweler and have them carve you a ring from carbon.

Quote:

Try to reduce diamonds back to carbon.

Nothing about diamond being edible in any of those... here's the only post I could find where you mentioned diamond not being edible, and it came after your previous posts had been thoroughly destroyed - almost as though you're changing your argument just to claim a win:


Quote:

Carbon is not Diamonds, because it has been completely transformed into diamonds and is not edible by any bacteria.

Now, we don't know of any bacteria that digest diamond, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible, and that it won't eventually be discovered.  Either way, nothing changes the fact that diamond is composed of carbon atoms, and nothing else.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

Evolution is a religion because it is based on faith and belief.

No, it's not, you just think it is. It's your opinion.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

I have a list of all these untested slogans. I was waiting for you to bring them up one at a time as your evidence, so I could teach you about this.

Those "slogans" are simplifications of much more complicated concepts, created to assist the public in understanding these concepts. Because they are oversimplified, I'm sure arguments can be made against them... but those arguments would only discredit the simplification, and not the base concept. For example, we've already addressed the "random" issue as being a simplification where if you explore the base concept there is no error or contradiction. "Evolutionary pressure" is an oversimplification of the concept of genetic shift by means of natural selection - and that statement, too, is an oversimplification of a more complex concept.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 5:40pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:23am: In every science text on bacteria.  Bacteria lives off organic matter and all organic matter is carbon based. I concede that all bacteria require carbon for survival - however, not all bacteria consume organic carbon. Iron-oxidizing bacteria, for example, require inorganic carbon, e.g. carbon dioxide. This is not the same, however, as saying that all carbon can be digested by bacteria! This is a false conclusion that is unsupported by the evidence! GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:23am: Even photosynthesis is using carbon dioxide and converting it to food for bacteria.  Nylon is made from naturally occuring carbon and in the process of making nylon it is converted to an edible food for bacteria, OBVIOUSLY. False. Prior to the development of nylonase, there were no bacteria that could digest nylon, therefore the process of making nylon does not convert the nylon to an edible food for bacteria. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:23am: Bacteria adapts to survive as the same creature. It has never evolved. This is a ridiculous statement. The fact that different strains of bacteria exist in different environments - for example, iron-oxidizing bacteria thrive in iron-rich environments but cannot survive in sulfur-rich environments, and bacteria that thrive in our guts cannot survive in iron-rich environments. The development of these different strains is evolution! GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:23am: There is no such thing as evolution.  In order to have evolution the creatures would need to evolve into a new creature. This is a straw man argument. First of all, no individual creature ever evolves into a new creature. Secondly, "new creature" is so poorly defined that it can be argued against in at least two different ways: if we interpret it loosly, the theory of evolution does not predict such transitions, it only predicts divergence in a family of organisms; and if we interpret it strictly, every creature is itself a new creature, as it is genetically unique, and thus distinct from all other creatures. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:23am: Without bacteria all life as we know it will die. This is why it never has evolved.  It must adapt as bacteria to keep life on earth going.  There exists more bacteria cells in your body than human cells. Don't you know this?  So what? What does this have to do with evolution or our discussion about diamonds and carbon? You're dodging the issue... GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:23am: Diamonds are not edible carbon. That is what I have repeated over and over.  It is not a form that bacteria seem to eat. Really? That's what your claim has always been? Let's go back and look: Quote: The fact is you cannot reduce a diamond back to carbon.  It requires almost a fusion effect of heat and pressure to change it to a crystal lattice. [quote]I use carbon in my work. Diamond do not work because they are diamonds and not carbon. Go to a jeweler and have them carve you a ring from carbon.

Quote:

Try to reduce diamonds back to carbon.

Nothing about diamond being edible in any of those... here's the only post I could find where you mentioned diamond not being edible, and it came after your previous posts had been thoroughly destroyed - almost as though you're changing your argument just to claim a win:


Quote:

Carbon is not Diamonds, because it has been completely transformed into diamonds and is not edible by any bacteria.

Now, we don't know of any bacteria that digest diamond, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible, and that it won't eventually be discovered.  Either way, nothing changes the fact that diamond is composed of carbon atoms, and nothing else.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

Evolution is a religion because it is based on faith and belief.

No, it's not, you just think it is. It's your opinion.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

I have a list of all these untested slogans. I was waiting for you to bring them up one at a time as your evidence, so I could teach you about this.

Those "slogans" are simplifications of much more complicated concepts, created to assist the public in understanding these concepts. Because they are oversimplified, I'm sure arguments can be made against them... but those arguments would only discredit the simplification, and not the base concept. For example, we've already addressed the "random" issue as being a simplification where if you explore the base concept there is no error or contradiction. "Evolutionary pressure" is an oversimplification of the concept of genetic shift by means of natural selection - and that statement, too, is an oversimplification of a more complex concept.[/quote]

You are really lost in this.   Bacteria adapt to and if the food is there they will adapt to it faster than any other creature that I know of.  It is not some magical "evolution" because if you remove the nylon and give them something else to eat, they adapt and will eat that.

The fact that bacteria can adapt in order to survive is not proof of evolution.  It points to the same thing as all the evidence points to.  ALL of the evidence only points to one principle of all creatures. They adapt to survive as the same creatures and nothing else is shown.

The basic premise of evolution is that creatures eventually change into new life forms. That humans evolved from fish.

This is not straw man. It is the belief.  I know because I have been on this study of human beliefs for a long time, over 41 years now. This is where this feculence leads people.

They start out with a bit of truth, throw in a lot of crap ideas and keep brainwashing you until you are an idiot, just like them.

This discussion is about bacteria, not diamonds and carbon. That bacteria has never evolved into anything.  It remains as bacteria forever.  It did not come from anything but bacteria in all the evidence we have.

Evodelusionists say that science has evolved and now they no longer believe that. So, now they believe other nonsense, and those idiots have destroyed foundational scientific terms words, manipulated foundational concepts of the real scientific method of testing testing testing and evaluation of the test results.

This crap doesn't even resemble anything else in real science in which we test things to see if it repeats over and over and over. This is the real scientific method. 

You can't test anything about this fantasy theory of evodelusionism.

It is all a bunch of religious slogans that have no basis in reality.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 11:51am:

Evodelusionists say that science has evolved and now they no longer believe that. So, now they believe other nonsense, and those idiots have destroyed foundational scientific terms words, manipulated foundational concepts of the real scientific method of testing testing testing and evaluation of the test results. This crap doesn't even resemble anything else in real science in which we test things to see if it repeats over and over and over. This is the real scientific method.  You can't test anything about this fantasy theory of evodelusionism. It is all a bunch of religious slogans that have no basis in reality.

When something is learned that changes your previous beliefs, let's hope you are rational and able to change your beleifs to reflect the new found evidence.

Some people are closed minded and CANT believe anything that goes against their God.............all the while they can't prove it wrong.

I wonder WHO these people could be?

The people that are fearful of their God or the people that don't believe in a God in the first place? I wonder!

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 6:42am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 11:51am: Evodelusionists say that science has evolved and now they no longer believe that. So, now they believe other nonsense, and those idiots have destroyed foundational scientific terms words, manipulated foundational concepts of the real scientific method of testing testing testing and evaluation of the test results. This crap doesn't even resemble anything else in real science in which we test things to see if it repeats over and over and over. This is the real scientific method.  You can't test anything about this fantasy theory of evodelusionism. It is all a bunch of religious slogans that have no basis in reality. When something is learned that changes your previous beliefs, let's hope you are rational and able to change your beleifs to reflect the new found evidence. Some people are closed minded and CANT believe anything that goes against their God.............all the while they can't prove it wrong. I wonder WHO these people could be? The people that are fearful of their God or the people that don't believe in a God in the first place? I wonder!

I told you that "my" God is the Truth.   I only seek to find the truth. That means I have learned to stay clear of delusional religious nonsense.

If you don't understand that on everything that IS, there is an absolute truth about it. 
If a fly drops a turd on your computer screen, there is only one way that took place in objective reality.

If you were not there to see how this happened, you will not ever find the truth on how it happened.

When people project fantasy and ideas about how this crap got on your computer screen, they are delusional.

They think they can project their beliefs on how this happened onto the "evidence". But one thing is for sure those beliefs are ALWAYS WRONG.

If I have no clue how the garbage got on my screen or even what type of garbage it is, then it is ridiculous for me to project my beliefs on the "evidence".

Do you understand anything?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 12:54pm:

If I have no clue how the feculence got on my screen or even what type of feculence it is, then it is ridiculous for me to project my beliefs on the "evidence".

Oh, the irony.

If you have no clue how the die ended up showing a 3, it is ridiculous for you to project your belief that is must have been strict cause-and-effect, rather than the possibility of a truly random bounce.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 12:54pm: If I have no clue how the feculence got on my screen or even what type of feculence it is, then it is ridiculous for me to project my beliefs on the "evidence". Oh, the irony. If you have no clue how the die ended up showing a 3, it is ridiculous for you to project your belief that is must have been strict cause-and-effect, rather than the possibility of a truly random bounce.

Why are you here?  You are wasting my time.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 2:46pm:

Why are you here?  You are wasting my time.

I guess showing you your hypocrisy would be a waste of time... mine, that is.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 4:05pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 2:46pm: Why are you here?  You are wasting my time. I guess showing you your hypocrisy would be a waste of time... mine, that is.

You have a religious belief in random.  Most religious beliefs are caused by ignorance.  Because your mind is to weak to understand cause and effect, does not allow you to impose religious beliefs on science.

Where did you learn such nonsense?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 10:28am:

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 4:05pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 2:46pm: Why are you here?  You are wasting my time. I guess showing you your hypocrisy would be a waste of time... mine, that is. You have a religious belief in random.

NOPE, but you can keep lying to promote your agenda that doesn't have enough merit to stand on its own.

WHAHAHH!  When you CANT find me an evolutionist that claim or say that 'random' is a religious belief, you will resort to lying to promote your agenda.  You have no evidence to promote it, so you MUST lie!


If I remember correctly, the forum administrator bans people that continue to lie.............so please be careful, he polices this site like a child!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 10:28am:

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 4:05pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 14th, 2010 at 2:46pm: Why are you here?  You are wasting my time. I guess showing you your hypocrisy would be a waste of time... mine, that is. You have a religious belief in random.  Most religious beliefs are caused by ignorance.

Sadly, that's exactly what a GOD is............religious belief. But the people that are too scared to be honest, will NEVER be able  to admit this.

And that is the truth unless you can prove me wrong.  I will sit back and see if you even attempt to address what I say or will you just continue to RUN from it.................just so you can promote your lying agenda?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 10:28am:

You have a religious belief in random.

No, I do not. I follow the evidence to the conclusion that non-deterministic events must occur at the quantum level, but that above the quantum level the law of cause and effect appears to hold true.

The evidence in favor of non-deterministic events includes the unpredictable radioactive decay of unstable atoms, and many other areas of quantum mechanics.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 10:28am:

Because your mind is to weak to understand cause and effect, does not allow you to impose religious beliefs on science.

I do understand cause and effect. I impose no religious beliefs on science.

The only "religious" imposition here is you insisting that non-determinism cannot be possible.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 9:09pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 15th, 2010 at 10:28am: You have a religious belief in random. No, I do not. I follow the evidence to the conclusion that non-deterministic events must occur at the quantum level, but that above the quantum level the law of cause and effect appears to hold true. The evidence in favor of non-deterministic events includes the unpredictable radioactive decay of unstable atoms, and many other areas of quantum mechanics. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 15th, 2010 at 10:28am: Because your mind is to weak to understand cause and effect, does not allow you to impose religious beliefs on science. I do understand cause and effect. I impose no religious beliefs on science. The only "religious" imposition here is you insisting that non-determinism cannot be possible.

There are no deterministic events any where, AND random is utterly false. Neither are real.
I have continually stated this over and over, but you are not reading what I write.  You need to follow along, because I am taking you into reality.

You need to digest that for a while.

Here is something to break up this monotony of listening to the same parroted crap over and over from non thinking people.  I have a limited tolarance for regurgitated false concepts that are not based in reality.

This is one of many of my favorite guitar players on the net.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqzx8Mghtkg

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 1:52am:

There are no deterministic events any where, AND random is utterly false. Neither are real. I have continually stated this over and over, but you are not reading what I write.  You need to follow along, because I am taking you into reality.

You do not understand the definitions of words, and insist on using your own incorrect definition even when it is repeatedly pointed out to you that you are using the incorrect definition. I am reading what you write, and I am telling you - yet again - that you are using the incorrect definition of determinism. Determinism means cause and effect, non-determinism means not cause-and effect, i.e. random. They are exclusive opposites. Either one is true or the other is true.

You insist on confusing determinism with predeterminism, which I agree is not true.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 1:52am:

I have a limited tolarance for regurgitated false concepts that are not based in reality.

Then you should stop regurgitating false concepts that are not based in reality.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 1:52am:

This is one of many of my favorite guitar players on the net.

Not bad at all.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 4:44am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 16th, 2010 at 1:52am: There are no deterministic events any where, AND random is utterly false. Neither are real. I have continually stated this over and over, but you are not reading what I write.  You need to follow along, because I am taking you into reality. You do not understand the definitions of words, and insist on using your own incorrect definition even when it is repeatedly pointed out to you that you are using the incorrect definition. I am reading what you write, and I am telling you - yet again - that you are using the incorrect definition of determinism. Determinism means cause and effect, non-determinism means not cause-and effect, i.e. random. They are exclusive opposites. Either one is true or the other is true. You insist on confusing determinism with predeterminism, which I agree is not true. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 16th, 2010 at 1:52am: I have a limited tolarance for regurgitated false concepts that are not based in reality. Then you should stop regurgitating false concepts that are not based in reality. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 16th, 2010 at 1:52am: This is one of many of my favorite guitar players on the net. Not bad at all.

You don't understand English.  Is it your second language?

Determinism and non-determinism are not words of science.
They are religious in nature. They have no meaning at all.

Determinism means an intelligent force is behind some event. The cause is intelligent.   Non-determinism IMPLIES that determinism exists.
Don't you know that?  What has happened to your brain.  It is not a scientific term at all.  It is based on religious beliefs.

Random and Determinism, as well as non-determinism are religious words. They imply magical nonsense that can never bet tested. 

I want you to make an experiment, using the scientific methodology and test this to show it is real.

That is your classroom in free thoughts assignment for today.


You see; anytime you cannot even produce a way to test something, it is nonsense.  I am teaching you this so you can be free of nonsense.

Idiots create false dichotomies all the time to give life to their nonsense.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 1:52am:

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 15th, 2010 at 9:09pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 15th, 2010 at 10:28am: You have a religious belief in random. No, I do not. I follow the evidence to the conclusion that non-deterministic events must occur at the quantum level, but that above the quantum level the law of cause and effect appears to hold true. The evidence in favor of non-deterministic events includes the unpredictable radioactive decay of unstable atoms, and many other areas of quantum mechanics. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 15th, 2010 at 10:28am: Because your mind is to weak to understand cause and effect, does not allow you to impose religious beliefs on science. I do understand cause and effect. I impose no religious beliefs on science. The only "religious" imposition here is you insisting that non-determinism cannot be possible. There are no deterministic events any where, AND random is utterly false. Neither are real.

Magical religious beliefs have no right being in the minds of rational thinkers.  You need to let go of your beliefs that are filled with cow feculence, but sadly you can't since your God will punish you if you do.  YOU CANT!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 16th, 2010 at 4:44am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 16th, 2010 at 1:52am: There are no deterministic events any where, AND random is utterly false. Neither are real. I have continually stated this over and over, but you are not reading what I write.  You need to follow along, because I am taking you into reality. You do not understand the definitions of words, and insist on using your own incorrect definition even when it is repeatedly pointed out to you that you are using the incorrect definition. I am reading what you write, and I am telling you - yet again - that you are using the incorrect definition of determinism. Determinism means cause and effect, non-determinism means not cause-and effect, i.e. random. They are exclusive opposites. Either one is true or the other is true. You insist on confusing determinism with predeterminism, which I agree is not true. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 16th, 2010 at 1:52am: I have a limited tolarance for regurgitated false concepts that are not based in reality. Then you should stop regurgitating false concepts that are not based in reality. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 16th, 2010 at 1:52am: This is one of many of my favorite guitar players on the net. Not bad at all. You don't understand English.  Is it your second language? Determinism and non-determinism are not words of science. They are religious in nature. They have no meaning at all. Determinism means an intelligent force is behind some event. The cause is intelligent.   Non-determinism IMPLIES that determinism exists. Don't you know that?  What has happened to your brain.  It is not a scientific term at all.  It is based on religious beliefs. Random and Determinism, as well as non-determinism are religious words. They imply magical nonsense that can never bet tested.  I want you to make an experiment, using the scientific methodology and test this to show it is real. That is your classroom in free thoughts assignment for today. You see; anytime you cannot even produce a way to test something, it is nonsense.  I am teaching you this so you can be free of nonsense. Idiots create false dichotomies all the time to give life to their nonsense.

WOW, you don't understand english.  This must be your second language!

SEE, how much fun this is???  I never have to provide evidence, all I have to do is SAY!    LMAO!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:

You don't understand English.  Is it your second language?

I understand English just fine... but apparently you're not using English, you're using GoodScienceForYou-ish, where words that have a known meaning in English have an entirely different meaning.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:

Determinism and non-determinism are not words of science. They are religious in nature. They have no meaning at all. Determinism means an intelligent force is behind some event. The cause is intelligent.   Non-determinism IMPLIES that determinism exists.

Wait... they have no meaning, but they have meaning? Which is it?

Once again, you are not using the correct definitions. I have quoted correct definitions earlier in this thread (or in the original thread). You might want to go and read them.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:

You see; anytime you cannot even produce a way to test something, it is nonsense.  I am teaching you this so you can be free of nonsense.

And if you can test it, and it fails that test, then it is nonsense.

I have tested your claims about the meaning of determinism by looking them up in an English dictionary. Your definitions have been proven to be wrong. I can safely conclude that your claims are nonsense.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 3:24pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17th, 2010 at 1:22pm: You don't understand English.  Is it your second language? I understand English just fine... but apparently you're not using English, you're using GoodScienceForYou-ish, where words that have a known meaning in English have an entirely different meaning. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17th, 2010 at 1:22pm: Determinism and non-determinism are not words of science. They are religious in nature. They have no meaning at all. Determinism means an intelligent force is behind some event. The cause is intelligent.   Non-determinism IMPLIES that determinism exists. Wait... they have no meaning, but they have meaning? Which is it? Once again, you are not using the correct definitions. I have quoted correct definitions earlier in this thread (or in the original thread). You might want to go and read them. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17th, 2010 at 1:22pm: You see; anytime you cannot even produce a way to test something, it is nonsense.  I am teaching you this so you can be free of nonsense. And if you can test it, and it fails that test, then it is nonsense. I have tested your claims about the meaning of determinism by looking them up in an English dictionary. Your definitions have been proven to be wrong. I can safely conclude that your claims are nonsense.

Those ARE NOT scientific terms. They are religious terms found in philosophy. Dumb ASS!
There exists NO WAY to perform any scientific study with a real test on f**king "determinism".   Your Staw Man nonsense is pissing me off.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 3:33pm:

Those ARE NOT scientific terms. They are religious terms found in philosophy.

They are terms used by philosophy: true
They are religious terms: false
They are not scientific terms: false

The fact that words are used in one field does not prohibit them from being used by another field. Determinism is used in science, and it's meaning is strict cause and effect.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 3:33pm:

Dumb ASS!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 12:09pm:

4/ If you want respect, be respectful.

Dumb ASS!


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 3:33pm:

There exists NO WAY to perform any scientific study with a real test on f**king "determinism".   Your Staw Man nonsense is pissing me off.

I'm not the one straw-manning the definition of "determinism".

As for testing determinism, you might want to do some research. There are a number of publications on tests for determinism in various fields of science including electronics and neurology.

If you cannot do one single test to show determinism, then it is not science. Dumb Ass!

Don't pollute science with religious bovine garbage. Clear!

All religious nonsense needs to be removed from public schools.

If you want to teach religious stuff take it home or in your church or somewhere else.

If it has no evidence then it is religious nonsense.

Here again is the question that any sane person would require before accepting any system of "science".

Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?  I must be physical, irrefutable, have no other plausibilities, and no opinions are considered to be evidence.

If you can't answer this question, then you are not sane if you believe in evolution.

This question is called a real scientific question.  It contains no bovine feculence, it cannot be refuted as THE question any sane person needs to form any acceptance of anything.
It is a truth only seeking question.