Using axioms then, can we be sure that if
A is the same as a B is the same as a C, that C is the same as an A.?

---

Maybe we shouldn't use logic when talking about Evolution

It's too hard to go through and reference everything. So I'm not going to.Some honorable member refered to Euclids axioms. Euclid was a brilliant Scientist.However according to wiki:
"Euclidean geometry is an axiomatic system, in which all theorems ("true statements") are derived from a finite number of axioms... Euclid gives five postulates (axioms):1. Any two points can be joined by a straight line.
2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
4. All right angles are congruent.
5. Parallel postulate. If two lines intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough.Number 1: Any two points can be joined by a straight line.
They can't. There is no such thing as a straight line: Space is subject to distortion.
2. False.
3. False.
4. True.
5. False(it can be disproved) Yes!
Why?
does X=X?
It's an axiom!Logic should be left in the realm of Mathematical Science where is plays an important role in gaining knowledge through the use of deduction.ID requires an axiom of a Designer.
Evolution requires it's own axiom.
Neither are acceptable for a logical arguement. As has been shown throughout this thread.

Randomness?

I said NosyNed said I say no because I'm not a biologist.NosyNed saysI say I don't have any idea what a random process is!Edited by LucyTheApe, : clarification

crashfrog Natural Scientists will

never

hijack science.Science was here thousands of years before LayMan Darwin ever entered the scene.

quote:

---

crashfrog says:

Whether or not Euclid's postulates are true about the world we actually inhabit is not actually relevant to geometry. They're defined as true, assumed to be true; that's what it means to be an "axiom." They're taken as true without actually having to be true. The conclusions that are drawn from them (say, that the sum of the angles of a triangle will equal 180 degrees) are only true insofar as you've already accepted the axioms.

---

Once a postulate or an axiom is shown to be wrong we have a paradigm shift. All previous notions go out the window.Edited by LucyTheApe, : clarification

?please explain!
F=GMm/R^2

G = 6.672*10 ^ -11 Nm^2/kg^2 It's a universal constant.

quote:

---

From the m-w Dictionary:

​

mathematics. One entry found.

​

1 : the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations

​

Wiki:
Formal science

​

A formal science is an academic study that is predominantly concerned with abstract formal systems, for instance, logic, mathematics, and the theoretical branches of computer science, information theory, and statistics.

---

Not while my blood is still warm!Anyway Dawn "so he's dead (as long as he's not jesus)" I'll agree if no-one else does that he's not "going to tell tales". What was your point because this has been dragging on for so long your just giving everyone more reason to take the piss.

Ok fellas, this is way off track Only with respect to the inverse square of the distance from the center of gravity.I think I know what JB means. I.e. that if he dangled from a spring on the north pole and measured the stretch he would get a different measurement if he dangled from the same spring
on the equator. My point was that gravity is universal and applies the same no matter where you are and hence F = GMm/r^2.

quote:

---

Aren't M and m relativistic?

  —Ringo

---

No, not here.
I’ve been talking about Gravity in the simplistic Newtonian sense
Which is an extremely good approximation, good enough in fact to
determine most of the orbits in the solar system. However gravity can
be better, and more precicly expressed as the effect on the curvature of space and time.
JB referred to the gravitational field. That’s only a mathematical model, there is no field of gravitons, they’re only theoretical. Just like a Circle and Pi and Randomness they don’t exist in nature, they are theoretical concepts created by scientists as tools to assist in explaining other phenomena.You mention Relativity. This is a good point and why the Euclidian axiom that states that two points can be joined by a straight line holds true ONLY in 2 dimensional Euclidean Space. Of course Euclid had no idea of Relativity. Try drawing a straight line on a tennis ball.But back to the point of this forum.Axioms must be irreducible and unambiguous. They are used to build systems such as
“Field Theory” , “Group Theory”. They are in fact a set of rules which encapsulate the boundaries of the Space of examination. Without them mathematics is useless. (Although some say this regardless).I claim that ID requires at least one instance of a Designer and the
ToE requires at least one, random mutation.Both fail miserably in being axiomatic. And I further claim that on this basis neither ID or the ToE can be proved on the basis of Logic alone.Edited by LucyTheApe, : exchange the word cannot with can

I just can't get my head around it. Tell me crashfrog, when you observe a random mutation, how do you know it's random? If you mean that it is very unpredictable, so is radioactive decay but it doesn't mean that it is random(without cause).Consider this: If I add an integer to an integer I get an integer. It's closed under addition and the algebraic axioms requires this. The operator is addition and needs no explanation.Now I take a set of genes and apply a random mutation operator..Hmm how do I do this? Maybe just select one, that's not random it's just arbitrary. Pick one out of a hat, that's not random either because I actually decided to do it. Write an algorithm? sure, give me all the processing power in the whole world and a couple of hundred billion years and I'll get pretty close, but no cigar. You just can't incorporate randomness into a structured system. On the other hand if by random you mean unpredictable, that's a different kettle of fish this works but then you've created a creator hat or Me the creator or Supercomputer creator.So what does random mutation mean, a smoke screen?

That's what I said...A smokescreen

quote:

---

That is not what I said. What exactly do you mean by smokescreen? Are you suggesting some sort of conspiracy or something?
  —Granny Magda

---

I'm sorry Granny I didn't mean to be rude.
Can you give me then Granny, a ball park figure
on how much of the randomness of a random mutation
is actually random(without cause)?