Evolution is mathematically impossible

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No fallacy there. No true Christian acts or talks like an unbeliever.

I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. I haven't said anything about people acting or talking like unbelievers.

 

[dad]

Or interpreted. The subjects of the experiment were a random selection of 'ordinary' believers, who thought they took moral guidance from God (via the bible or religious instruction). Turns out they unconsciously adjusted this guidance themselves depending on circumstance.

Try asking actual bible believers rather than ordinary supposed subjects that likely needed to rent a clue as to what the bible says.

They thought they were following what they believed to be God's guidance, but that guidance was more forgiving or more punishing depending on their own recent experience.

Sounds like the ones conducting the worthless survey knew the bible better than their victim/subjects.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Try asking actual bible believers rather than ordinary supposed subjects that likely needed to rent a clue as to what the bible says.

Sounds like the ones conducting the worthless survey knew the bible better than their victim/subjects.

OK, never mind.

 

[the iconoclast]

Nobody has "changed a word." That has been the scientific definition of "random" for centuries.

Hey hey saint

Before i continue with @sfs and @bhsmte, can you prove or show me how this is the case; that the scientific defintion of random is randomness and has been for centuries?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Already addressed these points.

Hey hey my friend.

When?

Ive gone back through to our last discussion on jan 11 2019 and see you answered in a similar way.

Bsmte - "Asked and answered."

In fact, comparing this conversation to the one we had in jan is nearly idenitical. You even said this

Bhsmte - "In regards to what psychological need does christianity suit? Well, there are so many denominations of christianity, that have varying ideology, people tend to gravitate towards the one that brings comfort. When psychological needs change over time, plenty of other variations of christianity for one to move on to."

Thats why i used the word gravitate in this discussion. My memory spins me out! It ended with you leaving the conversation and now we have become stagnant.

You seem me around and know my style, what do you want to get out of a discussion with me?

Show me where/how you answered, so we may inspect.

Re our Father in Heaven, what lack of evidence do you speak of? What evidence are you looking for?

Personally, i have a psychological need to believe as many true things and to not believe as many false things.

I too want to know true things and not false things. Lets backtrack a bit. Your answer re truth seems to be related to my question

Ic0n - "What personal pyscological needs gravitate you to atheism?"

How is atheism the truth?

I roll over a lot of rocks in this process.

I rock and roll most nights (i rock therefore i roll! ) What have you found?

Knowing we all have personal bias (some more than others), i look to independent objective evidence in my decision process and not really on subjective emotional comfort.

You look to independent objective evidence in your decision making abilities because you are afraid of your own bias or rationale?

Lets use me as an example.

I have an experience where i receive the Holy Spirit and have a vision which is full of Christian symbolism. It effects me in such a way that i feel new born and a different person.

What independent objective evidence would you recommend that should influence my decision making abilities here?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

I think it's wrong, just like every other attempt you make to stitch dictionary definitions together -- that's not how you understand concepts.

Hey hey saint

Looks like brother @Speedwell is officially part of our discussion. Ive read you response with great interest, im chomping at the bit and im cooking with gas. ;p

I will respond to you once i get an answer out of @Speedwell. You, speedwell and i = super fun time. I love you both, lets be friends since we are already brothers

 

[bhsmte]

Hey hey my friend.

When?

Ive gone back through to our last discussion on jan 11 2019 and see you answered in a similar way.

Bsmte - "Asked and answered."

In fact, comparing this conversation to the one we had in jan is nearly idenitical. You even said this

Bhsmte - "In regards to what psychological need does christianity suit? Well, there are so many denominations of christianity, that have varying ideology, people tend to gravitate towards the one that brings comfort. When psychological needs change over time, plenty of other variations of christianity for one to move on to."

Thats why i used the word gravitate in this discussion. My memory spins me out! It ended with you leaving the conversation and now we have become stagnant.

You seem me around and know my style, what do you want to get out of a discussion with me?

Show me where/how you answered, so we may inspect.

Re our Father in Heaven, what lack of evidence do you speak of? What evidence are you looking for?



I too want to know true things and not false things. Lets backtrack a bit. Your answer re truth seems to be related to my question

Ic0n - "What personal pyscological needs gravitate you to atheism?"

How is atheism the truth?



I rock and roll most nights (i rock therefore i roll! ) What have you found?



You look to independent objective evidence in your decision making abilities because you are afraid of your own bias or rationale?

Lets use me as an example.

I have an experience where i receive the Holy Spirit and have a vision which is full of Christian symbolism. It effects me in such a way that i feel new born and a different person.

What independent objective evidence would you recommend that should influence my decision making abilities here?

Cheers

You need to read more thoroughly.

Let me put it this way, i dont do well pretending and as i gained knowledge over the years (reliable independent evidence knowledge), i came to the conclusion the god christianity claims does not exist. My psyche is one that seeks to be in touch with well evidenced reality, even when acknowledging the same, is uncomfortable.

For those who do believe in the christian god, i completely understand and if it works for you, knock yourself out. I only take issue with believers, when they cant accept others may disagree with them, claim they are superior because they are christian, misrepresent well evidenced science and feel they are in a position to negatively judge those who disagree with them.

If a christian can refrain from the above, i fully respect their personal belief. The problem is, a whole bunch of christians on this site, can not refrain from the above.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey @Speedwell. We are missing your contribution to @sfs and my discussion.

Whats up with that?

 

[the iconoclast]

You need to read more thoroughly.

Hey hey my friend I think you should take your own advise as you seem to have missed quite alot of my post! Either you didnt read thoroughly or you dont want to address these questions. Curious!

Let me put it this way, i dont do well pretending and as i gained knowledge over the years (reliable independent evidence knowledge), i came to the conclusion the god christianity claims does not exist.

What do you mean by pretending? How did you reach this conclusion and what evidence was relevant?

My psyche is one that seeks to be in touch with well evidenced reality, even when acknowledging the same, is uncomfortable.

You need someone else to verify an experience?

For those who do believe in the christian god, i completely understand and if it works for you, knock yourself out.

Would you say receiving the Spirit is an example of something that works?

I only take issue with believers, when they cant accept others may disagree with them,

I only take issue with atheists when they cant accept others may disagree with them.

claim they are superior because they are christian,

Who claimed they were more superior than you and how did it make you feel?

misrepresent well evidenced science and feel they are in a position to negatively judge those who disagree with them.

And why do you feel the need to explain your feelings here to me?

If a christian can refrain from the above, i fully respect their personal belief.

What about their personal experiences with God? Would you accept and respect those?

The problem is, a whole bunch of christians on this site, can not refrain from the above.

They sound maddening. I hope your psyche can cope!

Anyways you have missed some questions,

i will repeat them. Failure to answer would mean what?

You seem me around and know my stylr, what do you want to get out of a discussion with me?

Re our Father in Heaven, what lack of evidence do you speak of?

What evidence are you looking for?

How is atheism the truth?

What have you found?

Lets use me as an example. I have an experience where i receive the Holy Spirit and have a vision which is full of Christian symbolism. I effects me in such a way that i feel new born and a different person.

What independent objective evidence would you recommend that should influence my decision making abilities here?

Dont be shy bhsmte.

You want respect than respect what i say and answer the questions.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey hey brother @Speedwell. We need your contribution before the conversation with @sfs can continue.

Youre not the type to stand up a gentleman are you?

 

[sfs]

Before i continue with @sfs and @bhsmte, can you prove or show me how this is the case; that the scientific defintion of random is randomness and has been for centuries?

Since I didn't make that claim I see no reason I should support it. In any case, if it's the history of the English language you're interested in, you're posting in the wrong forum.

 

[bhsmte]

Hey hey my friend I think you should take your own advise as you seem to have missed quite alot of my post! Either you didnt read thoroughly or you dont want to address these questions. Curious! What do you mean by pretending? How did you reach this conclusion and what evidence was relevant? You need someone else to verify an experience? Would you say receiving the Spirit is an example of something that works? I only take issue with atheists when they cant accept others may disagree with them. Who claimed they were more superior than you and how did it make you feel? And why do you feel the need to explain your feelings here to me? What about their personal experiences with God? Would you accept and respect those? They sound maddening. I hope your psyche can cope!

Anyways you have missed some questions,

i will repeat them. Failure to answer would mean what?

You seem me around and know my stylr, what do you want to get out of a discussion with me?

Re our Father in Heaven, what lack of evidence do you speak of?

What evidence are you looking for?

How is atheism the truth?

What have you found?

Lets use me as an example. I have an experience where i receive the Holy Spirit and have a vision which is full of Christian symbolism. I effects me in such a way that i feel new born and a different person.

What independent objective evidence would you recommend that should influence my decision making abilities here?

Dont be shy bhsmte.

You want respect than respect what i say and answer the questions.

Read my posts, all this stuff is addressed.

 

[Speedwell]

Hey hey brother @Speedwell. We need your contribution before the conversation with @sfs can continue.

Youre not the type to stand up a gentleman are you?

I am a bit leery of creationists who try on the equivocation fallacy and when called out about it complain that scientists are changing definitions for reasons of sophistry.

I'm not interested in arguing with you about whether the definition of "random" has undergone recent change in order to "trick" creationists nor look up ancient definitions to try and refute a statement about word meanings which I am sure you know to be false.

I can, by my own eye (ear?) witness to the fact that the scientific definition of "random" has been what we tell you it is for at least 60 years.

"Random--predictable by no known algorithm."

--The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering, Sokolnikov and Reheffer (1958)​

 

[sfs]

"Random--predictable by no known algorithm."

--The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering, Sokolnikov and Reheffer (1958)​

Nice. In any case, what really matters is that this is what we mean when we use the word 'random' here, which should be sufficient for carrying on a discussion of the concepts we're trying to talk about. It would be nice if the Iconoclast joined that discussion.

 

[dad]

Nice. In any case, what really matters is that this is what we mean when we use the word 'random' here, which should be sufficient for carrying on a discussion of the concepts we're trying to talk about. It would be nice if the Iconoclast joined that discussion.

What matters is that creation was not random. Interpreting data as random would merely be displaying a lack of depth and understanding if creation happened. Maybe science should add 'far as we can tell' when calling something random.

 

[Queller]

I can't construct an equation without the data.

If you can't construct an probability equation because you don't have the data, how can you come to the conclusion that something is improbable?

 

[Queller]

But I need all the information in order to formulate the odds of evolution occurring/not occurring.

Why? You've already decided a priori that evolution is improbable despite not having any data to form a probability equation.

 

[Queller]

The opening paragraph sent me around the bush and down the rabbit hole.

The maybe you shouldn't be deeming evolution improbable if you don't understand the basics.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you can't construct an probability equation because you don't have the data, how can you come to the conclusion that something is improbable?

Carl Sagan already did that for us.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why? You've already decided a priori that evolution is improbable despite not having any data to form a probability equation.

Didn't science also drink the evolution cool-aid before they knew what was in it?