The evidence for Evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

Hey hey @sfs

While we wait for @Speedwell to respond, lets include subs point here into our discussion.

When we consider randomness and "The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering, Sokolnikov and Reheffer (1958)" - supplied by brother speedwell

In science, a random process is called random not because of the pattern or series of steps but by the outcome.

What do you think about what sub said here re random?

Also @Subduction Zone , what do you think about the definition of random process supplied by speewell, defined in that book i highlighted?

Full tet of "Mathematics Of Physics And Modern Engineering"

P622 random process defintion

"A process is random if it is impossible to predict the final state from the initial state (as, for example, in a toss of a coin or a die)" - 1958

Brother @Speedwell and brother @sfs. Subduction zone has joined our discussion. I could not have asked for things to go my way, they just seem to.

Cheers and God Bless ;,p

I am sorry that you cannot understand a straight forward post. Your posts are extremely disjointed and all but unreadable. In another thread you made a gross error and did not own up to it. Tell me, why should I respond to someone that will not discuss the topic properly?

 

[In situ]

P622 random process defintion

"A process is random if it is impossible to predict the final state from the initial state (as, for example, in a toss of a coin or a die)" - 1958

This is not a good definition since a) it is unclear what "impossible' referes to, and as such b) it might include non-random processes, e.g. pseudo-random algorithms.

A more precis definition is 'a process is random if it lacks a cause for any event'. It might look similar to the above definition at a first glance but the difference is it excludes any form of hidden states which the above definition allows, i.e. the above definition includes determinstic processes which it is "impossible" to have sufficient knowledge about to predict the outcome. Such process might be called random for practical purposes but they are not random but rather a reflection of our current lack of knowledge.

In science, a random process is called random not because of the pattern or series of steps but by the outcome.

I find this claim doubtful. What if I design a deterministic process which emulate a random output, is this process random then? Do you have a source to the claim that the outcome determines if a process is random or not or is this something you concluded yourself?

Note: if there is detectable "patter" in a process then that process cannot be random. A random process is characterized by the lack of any pattern, i.e. the same thing as saying it is unpredictable.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey hey @sfs

While we wait for @Speedwell to respond, lets include subs point here into our discussion.

When we consider randomness and "The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering, Sokolnikov and Reheffer (1958)" - supplied by brother speedwell

In science, a random process is called random not because of the pattern or series of steps but by the outcome.

What do you think about what sub said here re random?

Also @Subduction Zone , what do you think about the definition of random process supplied by speewell, defined in that book i highlighted?

Full tet of "Mathematics Of Physics And Modern Engineering"

P622 random process defintion

"A process is random if it is impossible to predict the final state from the initial state (as, for example, in a toss of a coin or a die)" - 1958

Brother @Speedwell and brother @sfs. @In situ has joined our discussion. I could not have asked for things to go my way, they just seem to.

Cheers and God Bless ;,p

 

[The Barbarian]

Brownian motion is a random process, since it ultimately depends on quantum events that affect the velocity of molecules.

And no, a simulation of a random process is not a random process. However, so long as we cannot predict the outcome of the process, people generally refer to that process as random. Mutations, which depend on quantum events, are random.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not sure what the purpose of trying to pin down 'random' is, as its meaning is contextual. By far the most common usage is to mean 'unpredictable'. In physics, it's thought only quantum events can be truly random, and even here it depends on which interpretation you're using, e.g. Bohmian Mechanics and Everettian 'Many Worlds' interpretations are entirely deterministic.

Perhaps the iconoclast can explain the purpose of this random delving?

 

[dad]

And yet the lake of fire is the second death..... not merely separation from God, since God is everywhere. They "will be no more" as pain and suffering will be no more. Nowhere in the vast universe will they exist, nor in any place where God is not since God exists everywhere. Angels can and will die by undergoing the second death, from which there will be no hope of resurrection. They simply do not undergo the first death which is reserved for all of mankind as he passes into the grave, from which we have the hope of a resurrection.

Well, I don't think the existence of people and demons in the place prepared for them is subject to you approving or agreeing with.

Re 20:10 -And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

That does not correspond to your claim about them 'being no more'

 

[Speedwell]

Not sure what the purpose of trying to pin down 'random' is, as its meaning is contextual. By far the most common usage is to mean 'unpredictable'. In physics, it's thought only quantum events can be truly random, and even here it depends on which interpretation you're using, e.g. Bohmian Mechanics and Everettian 'Many Worlds' interpretations are entirely deterministic.

Perhaps the iconoclast can explain the purpose of this random delving?

I think the problem is that Iconoclast, like many creationists, was attracted by the popular usage of the term "random" which, unlike the scientific usage, includes an implication of purposelessness. He thus allows himself to imagine that "random" (as in "random variation and natural selection") is an explicit denial of the existence of God.

 

[dad]

I think the problem is that Iconoclast, like many creationists, was attracted by the popular usage of the term "random" which, unlike the scientific usage, includes an implication of purposelessness. He thus allows himself to imagine that "random" (as in "random variation and natural selection") is an explicit denial of the existence of God.

Creation was not random.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creation was not random.

But it is mythical. Evolution is not random, well one poster has been trying to use an equivocation fallacy by using an odd definition of "random". The problem with the definition that that poster wants to use is by that definition creation, even if it existed, would have been "random" too.

 

[The Barbarian]

But it is mythical. Evolution is not random, well one poster has been trying to use an equivocation fallacy by using an odd definition of "random". The problem with the definition that that poster wants to use is by that definition creation, even if it existed, would have been "random" too.

For some people, a God that's capable of using random processes to effect His will, is just too powerful and wise for comfort.

As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, divine providence only requires that something happen, and God can use contingency to that end, just as easily as He can use necessity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For some people, a God that's capable of using random processes to effect His will, is just too powerful and wise for comfort.

As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, divine providence only requires that something happen, and God can use contingency to that end, just as easily as He can use necessity.

I am constantly amazed at how creationists try to tell their version of God how he had to make the world. Or how he had to act as if there were a flood. The Earth tells us its history. It does not tell us who was or was not the ultimate maker.

 

[dad]

But it is mythical. Evolution is not random, well one poster has been trying to use an equivocation fallacy by using an odd definition of "random". The problem with the definition that that poster wants to use is by that definition creation, even if it existed, would have been "random" too.

1Co 11:9 - Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Re 4:11 - Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1Co 11:9 - Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Re 4:11 - Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

That does not help you. It may comfort you but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Also your first verse sounds rather sexist. Sounds good to me, but I am a man too. I don't think that women would appreciate it very much.

 

[dad]

That does not help you. It may comfort you but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Also your first verse sounds rather sexist. Sounds good to me, but I am a man too. I don't think that women would appreciate it very much.

Isa 14:24 - The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isa 14:24 - The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

You still don't seem to realize that a book were the authors wrote about God is not God speaking. There is a difference. The Bible does not even make that claim. Go ahead, link the verse. I will gladly explain your errors to you.

 

[dad]

You still don't seem to realize that a book were the authors wrote about God is not God speaking. There is a difference. The Bible does not even make that claim. Go ahead, link the verse. I will gladly explain your errors to you.

Joh 14:26 -But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Joh 14:26 -But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one.

Still confused I can see. By the way, Jesus also says the he is not God, depending upon the verses one chooses. Verses can be easily twisted by taking them out of context. For example your second verse appears to mean that Jesus and God agree when read in context. It does not mean that they are the same person:

24 So the Jews gatheredaround him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are itheChrist, jtell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. kTheworks that I do lin my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but myou do not believebecause you are not among my sheep. 27 nMy sheep hear my voice, and I know them, andthey follow me. 28 oI give them eternal life, and pthey will never perish, and qno one willsnatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, rwho has given them to me,1 sis greater thanall, and no one is able to snatch them out of tthe Father's hand. 30 uI and the Father areone.”

 

[HitchSlap]

Joh 14:26 -But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one.

I don't believe in ghosts.

 

[dad]

Still confused I can see. By the way, Jesus also says the he is not God, depending upon the verses one chooses. Verses can be easily twisted by taking them out of context. For example your second verse appears to mean that Jesus and God agree when read in context. It does not mean that they are the same person:

24 So the Jews gatheredaround him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are itheChrist, jtell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. kTheworks that I do lin my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but myou do not believebecause you are not among my sheep. 27 nMy sheep hear my voice, and I know them, andthey follow me. 28 oI give them eternal life, and pthey will never perish, and qno one willsnatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, rwho has given them to me,1 sis greater thanall, and no one is able to snatch them out of tthe Father's hand. 30 uI and the Father areone.”

Joh 8:47 -He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Joh 8:19 - Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

 

[dad]

I don't believe in ghosts.

Guess whatever you vote is real gets the wink and the nod. My world is a little bigger, thanks.