Unless I've suddenly forgotten how to write English, the above should communicate the idea that I don't believe randomness is connected to the topic, and that because Lucy has already demonstrated a propensity for going off-topic it probably isn't wise to act as an enabler.
Okeydokey Boss. My apologies.
“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
Let's dispense with the fallacy. Science does not gather facts, the facts exist whether science understands them or not. Facts exist in the objective reality that science tries to understand, but science does not create facts. The facts that validate relativity did not come into existence because of the logic of the argument, they exist independent of how complete our understanding of the universe is. Nor does science claim to have a lock on understanding reality. The only thing science does is test our understanding of reality against the objective evidence - against the facts of reality.
If big daddy Bertot is still in the mix. Here we go, thanks RAZD for finally admitting that facts can indeed be established and understood outside of the 'Scienctific-method', this is of course a big step in the right direction, thank you. I guess the force of an axiom brings that reality home with stinging accuaracy.
Except that you have demonstrate nothing except an unwillingness to look at the evidence that says you are wrong, and an ability to confuse concepts and meanings, to equivocate.
This statement is nothing more (and excuse me for being very rude here) an out and out lie. I have made every attempt to meet every argument presented to me, if not directly as there are so many, I have done it in substance. I have demonstrated and reinforced every point that I have presented. More specifically I have shown and demonstrated that the fact and reality of a designer, well falls within the parameters of a science method, that of, deductive reasoning applied through the demonstration of an axiom, the conclusion of which is obvious and demonstratable. When we are speaking of the origins of things or existence of things, we are of course speaking of their source. This of course is what is meant by its origin.. It makes absolutley no sense to speak of the origin of life on earth, then make no application to the source of its parts. In other words, is it only important to determine how it operates,(scientific method) without consideration of the source or origin of its materials and properties. And of course as I have demonstrated this can be done by the simple application of an axiom initially, (outside the ideologies of the religious context.)then cooberated by the obvious design in nature itself. The realization of a designer is most definatley a concept to be considered and evaluated in the question of the origins of things in reality. In other words it exalts itself as a LOGICAL and VALID consideration that should be presented, that is neither strickly religious or fanciful. It falls awell within the DEMONSTRATION of actual FACTS. Further, as I stated on the PBS WEBSITE, evolutionists need to demonstrate that design absolutley did not take place, not to simply, disagree with it or be contentious with it. Even if, they believe evolution was the process, it falls to them to demonstrate that it was not designed to evolve in that manner. Of course things could be designed to evolve. Now this is not an aquiesence on the part of the IDer/Creationist, only to point up the fact, that A creator and or designer in and of itself is a valid conclusion that should of course be considered and taught as to the origins of things, materials, properties and even existence itself.
We mean the science where we test our conclusions against the evidence of reality, the facts of reality, so if you mean some other science you mean something that is NOT tested against reality.
Thank you and of course this is exacally what we are saying and maintaining that our position does.
Sorry for my absence, I have been very bust you know., ie the axioms of life.
But you don't know for sure and you cannot absolutely prove that it never has happened. You are assuming that what you believe is true has not happened. Some people claim that the story of Lazarus in the bible is evidence of an actual was dead man actually talking. There are other stories as well, from almost every corner of the globe -- how can there be such evidence without a grain of truth? Can you really claim you KNOW? Again, your statement of the veracity of a statement is not evidence of it, nor is your record of accurate use of words one to rely on, nor is your ability to make a valid (to say nothing of a sound) logical argument demonstrated. Your favorite argument is the logical fallacy of incredulity - incredulity that anyone has the gall to disagree with you. While I agree that it is as much proof as any argument can have, I don't agree that it is absolute proof: it rests on assumptions. Just because no argument can do better does not mean that it suddenly becomes true either. Once again you have an invalid logical structure here, a missing premise (or are you just assuming that we will know what you mean?).
Enjoy.
All of the above statments are the truest example of evasion and unobjectivity, the equivolent of saying, I steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the truth and obvious stability of truth in fact, until it is disproven, only then will it be demonstrsted, to not be true, therefore it cannot really be considered a fact at present, until it disproven., (in this case the axiom I had presented). This type of reasoning, is the highest form of stubborness and lack of objectivity on the part of an individual. If a fact exists and is real and demonstratable beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt, (like those I have presented), it could only be ones stubborn refusal to accept its obvious conclusions, by maintaining that it cannot REALLY be accepted, because at some future point it might, even by some strech of the imagination be refuted. This is simply dirty pool and foul play.
Dawn Bertot's continued confusion; calling a statement a lie does not make it so.
If big daddy Bertot is still in the mix. Here we go, thanks RAZD for finally admitting that facts can indeed be established and understood outside of the 'Scienctific-method', this is of course a big step in the right direction, thank you. I guess the force of an axiom brings that reality home with stinging accuaracy.
Facts exist independent of whether we know about them at all, that's one of the common things about facts. Stubbing your toe determines a fact that there is something there you didn't expect, and you don't need to run scientific tests to determine that fact. Nothing you've said has changed this at all, not one statement.
Science does not claim to find all facts. That would be false and silly. Likewise to claim that you can determine real objective facts with logic alone is false and silly, because logic has no basis in reality to start from. That is inherent in it being an abstract intellectual exercise. You are confused when you think logic can make up facts, and you are confused about what axioms are.
You cannot conclude an objective fact in reality, a thing to stub your toe on.
More like "Big Daddy of Confusion and Denial" than anything else.
Your continued denial that I have falsified your self-evident argument just validates that my argument that there are no statements that everyone will agree are true is a sound argument. Thanks.
This statement is nothing more (and excuse me for being very rude here) an out and out lie. I have made every attempt to meet every argument presented to me, if not directly as there are so many, I have done it in substance. I have demonstrated and reinforced every point that I have presented. More specifically I have shown and demonstrated that the fact and reality of a designer, well falls within the parameters of a science method, that of, deductive reasoning applied through the demonstration of an axiom, the conclusion of which is obvious and demonstratable. When we are speaking of the origins of things or existence of things, we are of course speaking of their source. This of course is what is meant by its origin.. It makes absolutley no sense to speak of the origin of life on earth, then make no application to the source of its parts. In other words, is it only important to determine how it operates,(scientific method) without consideration of the source or origin of its materials and properties. And of course as I have demonstrated this can be done by the simple application of an axiom initially, (outside the ideologies of the religious context.)then cooberated by the obvious design in nature itself. The realization of a designer is most definatley a concept to be considered and evaluated in the question of the origins of things in reality. In other words it exalts itself as a LOGICAL and VALID consideration that should be presented, that is neither strickly religious or fanciful. It falls awell within the DEMONSTRATION of actual FACTS. Further, as I stated on the PBS WEBSITE, evolutionists need to demonstrate that design absolutley did not take place, not to simply, disagree with it or be contentious with it. Even if, they believe evolution was the process, it falls to them to demonstrate that it was not designed to evolve in that manner. Of course things could be designed to evolve. Now this is not an aquiesence on the part of the IDer/Creationist, only to point up the fact, that A creator and or designer in and of itself is a valid conclusion that should of course be considered and taught as to the origins of things, materials, properties and even existence itself.
Again you are confused. You confuse making posts that just keep repeating yourself with answering the refutations of your points.
You can call it a lie, but you have not demonstrated that it is false. That just makes your statement one of denial and not any kind of response dealing with the facts.
And I noticed that you still have NOT answered the issue about the evidence that your so-called 'self-evident truth' cannot be considered true to some people and hence it is not a self-evident truth. You have only confused evidence that the statement is (probably) true as a false refutation of the evidence that the statement is NOT self-evidently true to some people. You confuse the purpose of the evidence.
Until you deal with that confusion you have not dealt with the refutations of your argument. Denial of the evidence won't make it go away, and restating your position (again) will not make it any more valid. You are confused about your need to really deal with the evidence that has falsified your position.
Likewise your supposed argument for a designer confuses the meaning of creation, where in one case you have life created by molecules coming together and in the other life is created by a designer. Molecules are not supernatural beings, so you have equivocated (confused) the meanings.
Your whole argument is one of repeated confusions.
You are also (still) confused about what an axiom is. It is not a conclusion, and it is not a verified 100% absolutely and positively true statement. It is an abstract statement that is assumed to be true in order to build a logical argument, and nothing more. This is what the "science of logic" assumes in constructing the abstract methodological approach to studying the structures of arguments to determine what makes a statement valid or an argument sound, nor is there any reason for it to conclude anything more than that.
You are confused if you think the result of a logical argument can be anything more than tentative, and you are confused if you think a logical argument on it's own has any real relevance to the world of objective reality. A logical argument is by definition an intellectual abstraction, and nothing that can be concluded can make reality change or affect how it can behave in any way.
Your most common argument is one of disbelief -- the logical fallacy of the argument from incredulity -- and you are confused if you think this is a valid to say nothing of a sound argument. It's just another example of denial of reality, in this case the reality of what logic involves.
That you are confused about your understanding of logic is demonstrated by your frequent USE of this kind of (false\invalid) argument.
Thank you and of course this is exacally what we are saying and maintaining that our position does.
Except that the only way to test our understanding of reality is to test it against the facts -- those bits of evidence of objective reality that exist independent of your, mine or anyone else's understanding of reality.
Such tests show for instance that you confuse the evidence against your statement as not being self-evident truth with the need for it to show that the statement itself is false. This means you are confused about what your own argument is trying to establish. You don't need to establish that the statement is true, nor does one need to show that it is false - it can be true and it will still not be a self-evident truth to people who do not believe it is true.
You are confused. Very confuse.
When you say something like "as I stated on the PBS WEBSITE, evolutionists need to demonstrate that design absolutley did not take place, not to simply, disagree with it or be contentious with it" it shows your confusion about how logical arguments are constructed and what needs to be demonstrated to show your argument is false. You're wrong, of course. Nobody needs to demonstrate that to show that your conclusion that there MUST be a designer is false, they just need to show that you can get no further than a possibility of a designer being true to make your absolute conclusion false.
As bluegenes said: "either the universe was designed or it wasn't" -- and we just do not have any objective evidence to show one or the other, therefore to conclude one way or the other is a false conclusion.
You are confused. You are confused about what logic does, and you are confused about what logic accomplishes. This confusion has been amply documented by many people here.
And that's putting it politely.
Now you have claimed that my statements in Message 121 is "statement is nothing more ... an out and out lie."
Please demonstrate that it was intentionally made to deceive AND
Demonstrate (if you can) that it is false. (you have not attempted to do this yet in spite of having many opportunities to do so).
If you cannot do EITHER of those I suggest you review the forum guidelines (probably a good idea anyway, seeing as there is one about actually substantiating your argument instead of just repeating it).
Or you can admit that you are confused and in denial about reality.
All of the above statments are the truest example of evasion and unobjectivity, the equivolent of saying, I steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the truth and obvious stability of truth in fact, until it is disproven, only then will it be demonstrsted, to not be true, therefore it cannot really be considered a fact at present, until it disproven., (in this case the axiom I had presented). This type of reasoning, is the highest form of stubborness and lack of objectivity on the part of an individual. If a fact exists and is real and demonstratable beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt, (like those I have presented), it could only be ones stubborn refusal to accept its obvious conclusions, by maintaining that it cannot REALLY be accepted, because at some future point it might, even by some strech of the imagination be refuted. This is simply dirty pool and foul play.
Sorry, Dawn, but you're wrong again, and continuing to restate your position does not make it true. Sit down, take a breath and read this carefully:
(1) this argument is nothing but a personal attack, you have provided no additional evidence for your position, nor have you demonstrated that my argument is invalid, all you have done is attack me, the author of the argument. This is known as the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack, and it is typically used by people who (a) are confused about logic and (b) cannot deal with the argument itself but can't accept the validity of it for emotional reasons. I suggest you actually start learning about logical arguments and fallacies, and a good place to start is:
And from that reference this is the ad hominem fallacy:
You have called me a liar, but you have not dealt with my argument to show that it is wrong.
(2) You STILL fail to understand what you are up against. You are confused about what you need to demonstrate is true and what we need to show is false.
Your claim is that “dead men tell no tales” (extensively redefined by you to a very restrictive meaning of the statement that is not evident from the phrase itself) is a “self-evident truth”
This means that you claim it is BOTH “self-evident” AND “true” -- in the parlance of the “science of logic” both statements MUST be 100% absolutely and positively true for this statement to meet the conditions of being BOTH “self-evident” AND “true” ...
... and to show that it is NOT both “self-evident” AND “true” we only need to demonstrate that one element is false.
In this case the evidence is overwhelming that this statement is NOT self-evident, and that there are many people that will not accept it as true from the statement alone (what self-evident means).
Therefore the actual truth of the statement is irrelevant, the statement does NOT meet the condition of being BOTH “self-evident” AND “true” QED.
The fact that you also cannot show the statement itself is 100% absolutely and positively true is just icing on the cake.
Now, either deal with the problem of the statement NOT being self-evident OR admit that your argument is indeed invalid regarding this statement.
Continued denial will serve no purpose other than to bring to question your ability to deal rationally with arguments that contradict what you claim:
Re: Dawn Bertot's continued confusion; calling a statement a lie does not make it so.
Science does not claim to find all facts. That would be false and silly. Likewise to claim that you can determine real objective facts with logic alone is false and silly, because logic has no basis in reality to start from. That is inherent in it being an abstract intellectual exercise. You are confused when you think logic can make up facts, and you are confused about what axioms are.
How many times do I need to demonstrate that I AM NOT SAYING you establish a fact from LOGIC ONLY. Please pay attention. Cleaarly you have not learned yet what the force of an axiom can demonstrate. Having shown conclusively, with no fear of contradiction other than silly examples of peoples wacky beliefs(not direct evidence), the conclusion of which is irrefutable. Still waiting for any shread of evidence to the contray.
You cannot conclude an objective fact in reality, a thing to stub your toe on.
This of course is what you need to demonstrate that you cannot do. As I have clearly have, as I am still waiting for the evidence. Something you are clearly unable to provide. Next time you should be careful about challenging someone to such a simple task. Still waiting for the evidence that they can talk to anyone, have talked to anyone, or will talk to anyone. How long should we wait and how many people do we need to get to agree with us before its an actual, in truth and reality, fact. I think you are starting to see your obvious difficluty.
Again you are confused. You confuse making posts that just keep repeating yourself with answering the refutations of your points.
You can call it a lie, but you have not demonstrated that it is false. That just makes your statement one of denial and not any kind of response dealing with the facts.
And I noticed that you still have NOT answered the issue about the evidence that your so-called 'self-evident truth' cannot be considered true to some people and hence it is not a self-evident truth. You have only confused evidence that the statement is (probably) true as a false refutation of the evidence that the statement is NOT self-evidently true to some people. You confuse the purpose of the evidence.
Again I have noticed that you have failed to demonstrate why peoples opinions constitute any real kind of evidence to the contrary. How can a person of your obvious education make such an ASSUMPTION. In the posts from you I had just recently quoted from you, you simply disavow that concept. By making the obvious statements that facts are facts before we discover them, and the such. The ridiculous idea that because some people disagree with the conclusions, that it of course must not be true, is somehow an argument. How many times do I need to say that this is not an answer to the propositon that I am setting forth, its only an assertion. It does not matter whaT PEOPLE BELIEVE BUT WHAT THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE, (wheres the beef). Why would I respond to something that by any strech of the imagination requires no respone.
Or you can admit that you are confused and in denial about reality.
Now listen RAZD. I will be more than happy to do this when you provide me with DIRECT EVIDENCE, PHYSICAL IN NATURE OR SUBSTANCE, not merely rehtoric and non-sensical ramblings of individuals, that demonstrates the axiom I have set out is not demonstratable, conclusive and incontravible and atleast presently a fact in reality and truthful in reaity. You assignment Mr. Phelps, should you decide to accept it, is to accomplish this simple task. It is a fact in reality, demonstratable by the simple premise of AN AXION BY THE APPLICATION OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING. Now you can refute all of this simply by providing one SINGLE PARTICLE of EVIDENCEto the contrary.
We're already familiar with your position, so redescribing it from scratch isn't helpful. Ad hominem, ignoring rebuttals, and declaring that you've already demonstrated everything isn't helpful, either, being more indicative that you're out of ammo than anything else.
The bottom line remains unchanged. Logic by itself says nothing about the real world. Unless you can connect logic to reality through observation and experiment you have nothing.
And if there are any scientific axioms out there then there are very, very few of them. Attempting to elevate the "Dead men tell no tales" folk saying into an incontrovertibly true scientific axiom only highlights your misunderstandings. The fabric of scientific theories are spun from observations and experiments, not from axioms. If you think axioms play some significant role in science, then why don't you name some?
Re: Dawn Bertot's continued confusion; calling a statement a lie does not make it so.
Hi Dawn,
You keep contradicting yourself. First you say:
Dawn Bertot writes:
How many times do I need to demonstrate that I AM NOT SAYING you establish a fact from LOGIC ONLY.
This says that facts cannot be established from logic alone. Then later you say:
It is a fact in reality, demonstratable by the simple premise of AN AXIOM BY THE APPLICATION OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
This says that facts can be established from logic alone, the opposite of what you just said.
Science deals in facts and theoretical frameworks. If you want to talk about reality, then that's what you have to deal with.
I know others have mentioned your problems with typing/spelling, and in case you're interested in addressing the problem, Google Toolbar has a spellchecker (Google Toolbar) and Firefox does spellchecking right in the text box as you type (Firefox Website).
I simply said that some FACTS derived from the SCIENCE OF LOGIC , dont need further testing, measurement and prediction, they are truths in fact, without a specific physical testing, like that of a test tube method.
You may be able to tell us what Logic is, but would you be honest enough to admit not only that it is a science but that you can establish real facts from it and that it is as applicable as any other science in the establishment of truth.
Yes I have agreed to your acceptance of Logic as a formal science, but it does not help us if you are unwilling to admitt you can establish facts, real knowable facts by the SCIENCE OF LOGIC.
Our breakdown comes in your inablity to see that the science of Logic, establishes demonstratable FACTS, the concluion of which are knowable and knowable by anyones definition.
Logic as a science to develope or enchance the idea of Creation or ID is demostratable from the fact, that one can establish Facts, ACTUAL facts, that are usable, knowable "understanding gained by experience".
It is agreed that even if you list Logic as only a Formal science, it still has the ability to establish actual facts in truth, the conclusions again, of which are incontravertable, Axiom
In other words you can ascertain or grasp, that, "something that exists or is real" (Fact),by simply the application of the Science of Logic.
Conclusion. Due to the very obvious fact that a person can by the process of, the logic of Science, the decutive reasoning process, clearly and knowingly establish actual FACTS or axioms that are real, ...
Or are you confused about arguments you have already made and what they mean? They certainly have your confused spelling and sentence structure.
Please pay attention. Cleaarly you have not learned yet what the force of an axiom can demonstrate. Having shown conclusively, with no fear of contradiction other than silly examples of peoples wacky beliefs(not direct evidence), the conclusion of which is irrefutable. Still waiting for any shread of evidence to the contray.
An axiom is a statement that is assumed to be true. As such it can demonstrate nothing except that assumptions are needed to make logical arguments.
This of course is what you need to demonstrate that you cannot do. As I have clearly have, as I am still waiting for the evidence. Something you are clearly unable to provide. Next time you should be careful about challenging someone to such a simple task. Still waiting for the evidence that they can talk to anyone, have talked to anyone, or will talk to anyone. How long should we wait and how many people do we need to get to agree with us before its an actual, in truth and reality, fact. I think you are starting to see your obvious difficluty.
And here you are once again arguing that you can establish a fact with logic alone. Clearly you are confused.
Clearly you are also confused about what logic can and cannot do when you ask someone to prove a negative. The simple task on the other hand is to demonstrate what you assert: demonstrate that you can establish a fact in reality by logic alone. If you can do it you should be able to provide an example.
Now listen RAZD. I will be more than happy to do this when you provide me with DIRECT EVIDENCE, PHYSICAL IN NATURE OR SUBSTANCE, not merely rehtoric and non-sensical ramblings of individuals, that demonstrates the axiom I have set out is not demonstratable, conclusive and incontravible and atleast presently a fact in reality and truthful in reaity. You assignment Mr. Phelps, should you decide to accept it, is to accomplish this simple task. It is a fact in reality, demonstratable by the simple premise of AN AXION BY THE APPLICATION OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING. Now you can refute all of this simply by providing one SINGLE PARTICLE of EVIDENCEto the contrary.
In other words you cannot defend your argument that your statement is a self-evident truth -- on that is BOTH self-evident AND true.
This is evident from your failure to reply to the refutation of your claim, the refutation that DOES demonstrate with direct evidence that the statement is not and cannot be self-evident for everyone nor that every must see it as being true.
Consider this: the many thousands of actual philosophers and actual logicians, people who have actually studied logic and actually worked on the science of logic, people who know more about logic than you and me and Percy and PaulK and Silent_H etc, etc ... do not have a list of self-evident truths, statements that they use as examples of such truths. Consider that no dictionary definitions of "self-evident truth" list any examples of such truths with the definitions. The conclusion is that either (a) they are (in truth) non-existent or (b) they are so common that nobody needs an example.
If the later is the case it should have been simple for you to list several at the drop of a hat, statements that nobody would argue about how restrictively you need to redefine them to say nothing about providing evidence that the statements are NEITHER self-evident NOR necessarily true.
Consider that there are many definitions that state without equivocation that axioms and self-evident truths are statements that are assumed to be true as a basis for making a logical argument, and that these definitions would not exist if this was false.
The only objective, rational conclusion is that axioms and self-evident truths are statements, and nothing more. For the application of logic, for the study of the science of logic they do not need to be anything more.
You have frequently complained about our objectivity ...
This type of reasoning, is the highest form of stubborness and lack of objectivity on the part of an individual.
... yet the evidence is that your responses are full of emotional appeals (like the one just quoted) rather than objectively dealing with the refutations of your arguments, refutations that are documented with substantiations, and actual evidence in a sound rational argument. It seems that you are confused about what objectivity means.
I become more convinced, every time you fail to provide any new argument that would support your already falsified assertions, and instead make an argument based on logical fallacy (argument from incredulity, ad hominem argument, argument from consequences, etc), that you are really quite confused about what logic is and how it works.
See how ambiguous random is! I'm going to create two new words for the sake of clarity.
randomwoc: non-causal.
randomaom: a means of trying to explain a tricky event. It includes the generally accepted definitions of random but is restricted only by the users imagination, creativity and conscience but does not include randomwoc.
Let the set G={m1,m2,...mn} represent all possible mutations within the gene pool.
What I want to do is to map G onto G using a function f. f: G -> G Where f has a set of arguments f={a1,a2,..an}
So I have to build a machine that performs the required function. Lets try build a machine using randomwoc. Lets have a look at some possible arguments : a1 = reduce the amount of chromosomes in a ape by two. That's ok, it produces a human, which is a mutant and is an element of G.
a2 = reduce the the amount of mass in the universe by a half. That's ok too because half of G is in G.
a3 = just create a new mutant x. Can't .. x is not in G.
We can't build such a machine. Randomnwoc can't be bound by axioms.
Ok, we'll try build the machine using randomaom. How? lets try for a start, reverse engineering. Observe a mutation and declare that there is no pattern. Then we pull our heads out of the sand and find out why the gene mutated. We can in fact, if we apply and or modify the physical laws we know, and establish the one we don't know, account for the mutation.
Then we might have arguments in f such as: a1 = produce a high energy particle or two from the decay of Radium. a2 = Strike a gene with a photon from the sun. etc.
If we know enough about the physics governing the decay of Radium then we can write an algorithm describing it. Same goes for the sun. In fact, we can do the same for every a in f.
And I can assure you that we can now build one machine, i'll call it Fred, that simulates f.
Now the question is, "Is Fred dumb". But before anyone tries to answer that question consider what Michael Sipser says in "An introduction to the Theory of Computation"
quote:A proof is a convincing logical argument that a statement is true. In mathematics an argument must be airtight, that is, convincing in an absolute sense. That is rather different from the notion of proof that we use in everyday life or in the law. A murder trial demands proof "beyond reasonable doubt." The weight of evidence may compel the jury to accept the innocence or guilt of the suspect. However, evidence plays no role in mathematical proof. A mathematician demands proof beyond any doubt.
I'll tell you why I think you're wrong about the randomness stuff, and someone who actually knows physics can correct me where I'm drawing faulty conclusions.
If we know enough about the physics governing the decay of Radium then we can write an algorithm describing it.
According to Bell's Inequality, no, actually, you can't. Atomic decay is random - randomwoc in your terminology - and it can't accurately be described as a function of "local hidden variables."
That is, given a number of radium atoms, you can determine statistically how many of them will have decayed over a given time, but there's no mathematical model you can create - using "hidden local variables", in this case, the idea that atoms have little individual timers that "go off" when it's time for them to decay - that will accurately predict which atoms have decayed, because it isn't deterministic in that way. In other words Bell's Inequality proves that various apparently random quantum behavior is actually random; it's not just pseudorandom output of an unknown, deterministic function.
Nonetheless, all this is essentially irrelevant to evolution. Darwin's model is that individuals are born with variances in physical characteristics, regardless of what adaptations are advantageous; then, over the course of their lifetimes, individuals with characteristics that are better-suited to the environment experience greater reproductive success than those individuals who are not as well-suited.
This is opposed to Lamark's model, where individuals are born largely the same among a cohort group, and then individuals acquire characteristics throughout their lifetimes which they then pass on to their offspring; as well as opposed to special creation, which contends that organisms were created by God exactly as they now are, and have not changed throughout their species lifetime.
It's an objective fact that Darwin's model is substantially better supported than either of the other two. And with the rise of molecular analysis techniques we've come to learn why individuals vary amongst themselves and from their parents: random mutations of their genetics.
According to Bell's Inequality, no, actually, you can't. Atomic decay is random - randomwoc in your terminology - and it can't accurately be described as a function of "local hidden variables."
I'm very dissapointed crashfrog that you've gone and tried to redefine my word on the very next post.
The mere fact that an atom of radium exists is cause enough for us to assume, with the knowledge we already have, that at some stage it's going to decay, in fact, we can even predict the existence of Radon just by what we understand of radium.
Randomaom is where radioactive decay belongs. Just because it seems paradoxical today, doesn't mean that we wont understand it better tomorrow. Your only giving Fred intelligence that he doesn't deserve...Yet.
Uh, you guys do realize that unless you can tie the definition of random into the topic that you're off-topic. Persistently off-topic.
sure Percy, gladly.
My understanding of the topic of this thread is to determine if logic alone can determine ID.
My claim, which I have already made, is that it can't.
My strategy is to show that ToE and ID are identical in the space they occupy (theoretical framework).
My limited understanding of ID is that nature was designed by and guided by a transcendental identity.
My even less limited understanding of ToE is that giraffes have long necks so that they can reach higher up in the trees and elephants have long trunks so they don't have to bend down to drink. And that the fundamental driving force behind this is random mutation.
To build up a framework for the ToE I had to (have to) dispel the ridiculous myth that there is non-causal effects acting on random mutation.
Next I will show that ToE cannot be explained by logic alone.
Then I will show that ID and ToE are the same thing. And then conclude that if ToE cannot be explained by logic and considering ID and ToE are the same thing, then ID cannot be explained by logic alone.
Clearly you are confused.
™ Version 4.2
