Conquer Club

Gotcha. You were splitting hairs on the vagaries of human language with someone unable to separate a legal document from a scientific one. If I had read back, I probably would have noticed that. "All people are created equal" would be a goal for legal perspective, since we all have certain "inalienable rights."

So, no, we aren't all perfect clones, and no, the Declaration of Independence shouldn't be used as science, or advocacy for eugenics, or whatever the hell else you people were talking about.

In summary,

Evolution is part of science, which attempts to tell a story that life is absolutely random, unequal and finite. This theory has a near 0 chance of being possible based on observable information, but is used to justify the worst atrocities we have ever witnessed. Life has been declared unequal without the need to establish the root of life.

Evolution was not meant to justify God but to discredit God. It shouldn't be viewed in the context of the extent of its influence on society or within a greater context within science, but held in isolation.

Evolution folks, keep it up. You'll extinguish yourselves. I ask nothing of you but the respect to make a logical choice unimpeded. As for UC, please stop letting your bias interfere with your understanding. Jesus is the central authority of Christianity and what you say has zero merit within his authority and the indoctrination that you have received was outside the realm of his authority. That is, your position is neither Christian nor religious. Whereas evolutionist are predestined to lack central tenets guiding a productive society, you have disavowed the central tenets of Christianity and have willfully proposed a destructive society.

Oh lol. Feeling persecuted this morning? It's really not all about you and the small deities you fawn over. You can carry on without us in your dim house with your shrines and holy papers. Just keep the toxic slag to yourself, please. We will be out here, you know, sciencing.

Small deities you fawn over. God is neither "deities" nor "small". God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Each part of each cell in your body is composed of God as is each each part of each cell of sand, each law which holds them together, allows them to interact, bring forth light is God.

Each scientific study is the study of God. I have no shrines to God, the whole universe is a shrine to God. That you choose to dismiss this is irrational, biased and self-defeating. The question is why you don't feel that you are allowing yourself to persecute yourself. What lack of understanding and imbedded hate has caused you to put every part of your being at the disposal of the abyss?

shickingbrits wrote:Small deities you fawn over. God is neither "deities" nor "small". God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Each part of each cell in your body is composed of God as is each each part of each cell of sand, each law which holds them together, allows them to interact, bring forth light is God.

Each scientific study is the study of God. I have no shrines to God, the whole universe is a shrine to God. That you choose to dismiss this is irrational, biased and self-defeating. The question is why you don't feel that you are allowing yourself to persecute yourself. What lack of understanding and imbedded hate has caused you to put every part of your being at the disposal of the abyss?

--Andy

The theory of science is like this:

An infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of typewriters could produce Hamlet.

The message is that randomness can produce anything. But there was nothing random about anything in the analogy. The choice of monkey was not random, only few creatures would even have the ability to type and humans are off the cards to make it random. The typewriter has a limited amount of combinations that can be produced. An infinite amount of monkeys could not exist and have the means to type in any observable conditions.

You have cherry-picked the randomness of it and set it outside of observable conditions. What appears to be a logical statement cannot be produced and if produced would not prove the thesis, that anything can be produced by randomness.

A truer analogy to the scientific explanation of the world we live in is more like, I can convince you that I'm pulling a rabbit out of my hat if you willfully ignore information.

shickingbrits wrote:The theory of science is like this:

An infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of typewriters could produce Hamlet.

The message is that randomness can produce anything. But there was nothing random about anything in the analogy. The choice of monkey was not random, only few creatures would even have the ability to type and humans are off the cards to make it random. The typewriter has a limited amount of combinations that can be produced. An infinite amount of monkeys could not exist and have the means to type in any observable conditions.

A Few Million Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare

Instead of having real monkeys typing on keyboards, I have virtual, computerized monkeys that output random gibberish. This is supposed to mimic a monkey randomly mashing the keys on a keyboard. The computer program I wrote compares that monkey’s gibberish to every work of Shakespeare to see if it actually matches a small portion of what Shakespeare wrote. If it does match, the portion of gibberish that matched Shakespeare is marked with green in the images below to show it was found by a monkey. The table below shows the exact number of characters and percentage the monkeys have found in Shakespeare. The parts of Shakespeare that have not been found are colored white.

Click here to investigate. Select available works in the upper right corner

My digital monkey brethren.


--Andy

shickingbrits wrote:Small deities you fawn over. God is neither "deities" nor "small". God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Each part of each cell in your body is composed of God as is each each part of each cell of sand, each law which holds them together, allows them to interact, bring forth light is God.

Each scientific study is the study of God. I have no shrines to God, the whole universe is a shrine to God. That you choose to dismiss this is irrational, biased and self-defeating. The question is why you don't feel that you are allowing yourself to persecute yourself. What lack of understanding and imbedded hate has caused you to put every part of your being at the disposal of the abyss?

Don't forget omnibenevolent,I mean Ebola,Rotavirus,HIV,Malaria etc. just prove how infinitely good he is.Not forgetting he made some of us unable to believe in him condemning us to eternal torment for following our consciences.Some guy huh?
And that's without going into the contradictions inherent in his other Omni qualities..

If you don't wish to participate in the infinite number of energy exchanges that God undergoes to create your life, then here's a wall, feel free to bang your head against it.

shickingbrits wrote:If you don't wish to participate in the infinite number of energy exchanges that God undergoes to create your life, then here's a wall, feel free to bang your head against it.

Gobbledegook...random words strung incoherently together devoid of meaning or message,and not even addressed to anyone in particular.No doubt to be followed by your self-pitying martyr complex.

That's sort of cute, I guess. Randomness directed by competition and other selection pressures makes less intuitive sense than infinite Skybro? You aren't alone in thinking that, but you are otherwise adrift in petty vagaries. I feel certain pities that are unique to different religions; tell me which brand you are, SB. Are you missing out on fantastic sexual exploits? Lack of self worth and initiative? Bigotry? Jehovah's Witness? What minutiae of your silly life makes your Grand Deity grumpy?

I used "vagaries" twice on one page. I need a thesaurus or something.

Neoteny wrote:I used "vagaries" twice on one page. I need a thesaurus or something.

Roget's Thesaurus rules ok,governs adequately,administers reasonably....

itt: shittingbricks trolls Neoteny

Surely there is no evidence of such things happening before.

I'm every word in the dictionary.

I don't suscribe to religion. I believe in the moral authority disclosed by Jesus and not whatever perverse purposes the different religions interpreted it to be.

shickingbrits wrote:I'm every word in the dictionary.

I don't suscribe to religion. I believe in the moral authority disclosed by Jesus and not whatever perverse purposes the different religions interpreted it to be.

#

Have you heard they are removing the word 'gullible' from dictionaries?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Neoteny wrote:To where shall I mail her?

At your house.

Do you agree that IQ is largely determined by genetics? Before answering the rhetorical question, consider the following:

Sure, I don't know what the IQ tests of babies are, but from what I've heard, IQ is not something you can pump up as easily as muscles. There's some genetic constraint. E.g. if I drank all day, then my IQ would decrease. If i didn't, it would rise to my baseline IQ. If I spent more time researching it would increase by some small degree. Nevertheless, if I have an IQ of 130 at the age of 22, it's not like I can increase it to 160 because there's genetic constraints.

I think you just hoisted yourself on your own petard... mucles are limited by genetics, too. Whether they are more or less limited than IQ is another question. The best answer is "maybe, depending on other genetics"

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, to wrap this around, we're all endowed with different IQs at birth.

... which are changeable, though not without constraint.

Neoteny wrote:That's sort of cute, I guess. Randomness directed by competition and other selection pressures makes less intuitive sense than infinite Skybro? You aren't alone in thinking that, but you are otherwise adrift in petty vagaries. I feel certain pities that are unique to different religions; tell me which brand you are, SB. Are you missing out on fantastic sexual exploits? Lack of self worth and initiative? Bigotry? Jehovah's Witness? What minutiae of your silly life makes your Grand Deity grumpy?

Except, in the case of evolution, (any long term event most likely) there are so many directing factors that the whole idea that mathematical randomness might apply is ludicrous... with or without God.


Also, you hold a bias similar to many antagonistic of theistic beliefs... namely that presence of God MUST, inherently mean breaking any set system. Most Christians would argue the opposite. God created all around us, including the systems and processes, so why would God subvert them?

Note.. I am in no way suggesting you have to believe in God or any such. (that debate we have had ... and it belongs in other threads) I am saying that to make that assumption and pretend it is a necessary pretext is, at best a straw man argument, at worst, plain insulting and ignorant.

shickingbrits wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:The theory of science is like this:

An infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of typewriters could produce Hamlet.

The message is that randomness can produce anything. But there was nothing random about anything in the analogy. The choice of monkey was not random, only few creatures would even have the ability to type and humans are off the cards to make it random. The typewriter has a limited amount of combinations that can be produced. An infinite amount of monkeys could not exist and have the means to type in any observable conditions.

And thereby you neatly explain WHY evolution is not, and never truly has been, scientifically considered a mathematically random event. All referrals to such are methods of explanation, discussion and comparison to other ideas. Sort of like saying "this coat is bluer than that one"... but not considering if its green-blue or purple-blue. There are times when that is perfectly valid, but it should not be confused with a true analysis of either coat's color.

shickingbrits wrote:You have cherry-picked the randomness of it and set it outside of observable conditions. What appears to be a logical statement cannot be produced and if produced would not prove the thesis, that anything can be produced by randomness.

ONLY the very, very beginning processes are possible random. In that, it is not different than asking "where was God.. before".
The answer is essentially axiomatic, inherent. God must, essentially by definition, have always existed. Without God, there must have been some sort of initial event approaching randomness.

Neither can be proven and neither is really of relevance to what exists today, to the processes that exist today.


A truer analogy to the scientific explanation of the world we live in is more like, I can convince you that I'm pulling a rabbit out of my hat if you willfully ignore information.

No, that is what frauds do. Sadly, there are plenty of those out there, pretending to be scientists. More sadly, too many within the church have decided that someone claiming to adhere to Christ has more scientific credibility than someone who actually uses real scientific processes-- testing, challenging and questioning.

Thanks for the misquote followed by a random sad post.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Neoteny wrote:To where shall I mail her?

At your house.

Do you agree that IQ is largely determined by genetics? Before answering the rhetorical question, consider the following:

Sure, I don't know what the IQ tests of babies are, but from what I've heard, IQ is not something you can pump up as easily as muscles. There's some genetic constraint. E.g. if I drank all day, then my IQ would decrease. If i didn't, it would rise to my baseline IQ. If I spent more time researching it would increase by some small degree. Nevertheless, if I have an IQ of 130 at the age of 22, it's not like I can increase it to 160 because there's genetic constraints.

I think you just hoisted yourself on your own petard... mucles are limited by genetics, too. Whether they are more or less limited than IQ is another question. The best answer is "maybe, depending on other genetics"

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, to wrap this around, we're all endowed with different IQs at birth.

... which are changeable, though not without constraint.

Do you feel that your comments are in any way incoherent?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Neoteny wrote:To where shall I mail her?

At your house.

Do you agree that IQ is largely determined by genetics? Before answering the rhetorical question, consider the following:

Sure, I don't know what the IQ tests of babies are, but from what I've heard, IQ is not something you can pump up as easily as muscles. There's some genetic constraint. E.g. if I drank all day, then my IQ would decrease. If i didn't, it would rise to my baseline IQ. If I spent more time researching it would increase by some small degree. Nevertheless, if I have an IQ of 130 at the age of 22, it's not like I can increase it to 160 because there's genetic constraints.

I think you just hoisted yourself on your own petard... muscles are limited by genetics, too. Whether they are more or less limited than IQ is another question. The best answer is "maybe, depending on other genetics"

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, to wrap this around, we're all endowed with different IQs at birth.

... which are changeable, though not without constraint.

Do you feel that your comments are in any way incoherent?

When you start in on the personal attacks, I know I made a good point.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Do you feel that your comments are in any way incoherent?

I feel her comments are completely coherent. Obviously you won't take too much stock in my opinion.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Neoteny wrote:That's sort of cute, I guess. Randomness directed by competition and other selection pressures makes less intuitive sense than infinite Skybro? You aren't alone in thinking that, but you are otherwise adrift in petty vagaries. I feel certain pities that are unique to different religions; tell me which brand you are, SB. Are you missing out on fantastic sexual exploits? Lack of self worth and initiative? Bigotry? Jehovah's Witness? What minutiae of your silly life makes your Grand Deity grumpy?

Except, in the case of evolution, (any long term event most likely) there are so many directing factors that the whole idea that mathematical randomness might apply is ludicrous... with or without God.

I totally agree. I was mostly just commenting on the idea that an infinite god is somehow more believable than certain observable phenomenon like natural selection and heredity. Explaining to creationists the difference between mathematical randomness and selective pressures acting on a complex system of heredity is so 6 years ago.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, you hold a bias similar to many antagonistic of theistic beliefs... namely that presence of God MUST, inherently mean breaking any set system. Most Christians would argue the opposite. God created all around us, including the systems and processes, so why would God subvert them?

Note.. I am in no way suggesting you have to believe in God or any such. (that debate we have had ... and it belongs in other threads) I am saying that to make that assumption and pretend it is a necessary pretext is, at best a straw man argument, at worst, plain insulting and ignorant.

I don't necessarily believe that a god would bust up a particular system. I just think it's silly to use one as an answer to problems. Especially ones that already have pretty obvious answers. Having said that, I would be lying if I said my goal wasn't somewhere in the vicinity of "plain insulting."