Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[james bond]

I didn't say that. We don't have the smoking gun.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In fact, you don't even have a hypothesis for how GMOs could cause tumors. You not only have no smoking gun, you have no body, no suspect, and no crime scene. You once saw a blog you never actually full read or understood, and, as faithy types are inclined to do, you forever adopted a belief that matched the first feeling that fizzled into your colon upon seeing the blog headline.

Whoa. Why are you becoming so defensive? You even admitted we do not know what is in our foods if we do not know the ingredients. There are no labels for GMO or bioengineering of genetics and biotechnology used to cut up and join together genetic material and especially DNA from one or more species of organism and to introduce the result into an organism in order to change one or more of its characteristics. Although, the non-GMO side try to avoid non-GMO foods, it is near impossible to avoid. Who hasn't gone to a fast foods place? Who hasn't gone to Starbucks and used regular or stevia (not organic) sweetener? Who hasn't eaten corn on a cob?

Even Costco has both GMO and non-GMO foods. Those who want non-GMO (organic and wild caught) end up paying more, but it is what it is.

Yet, the non-GMO people think that it is better and tastes better. I should start going to Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market almost all the time for my food since you're reacting this way.

After all, I said, "Practice what you preach " This could be a revelation for me.

Obviously, it's status quo for you. Enjoy your Popeye's fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and cole slaw today.

 

[Hollie]

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

 

[james bond]

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Oh, come now. Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity. With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities. All of it, you missed haha . Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time. Why is that?

Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing? It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

It's the general history of supernatural creation.

 

[james bond]

Science isn't about belief ... it's about observation ...

Not with what's happened since evolution in the 1850s. Our side OBSERVED with the success of the swan neck experiment and the failure of the Miller-Urey experiment.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Would Versus Could Competing With Must Be But Not Necessarily "

* Infinite Identity Sets Are Complete And Closed *

Yes, they are superlatives. In classical theism, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's incomparably great and perfect in his being. He's an indivisible, unembodied mind who knows all things about existence, can do all things possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all of existence. The qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics are categorically distinct things.
God is not an actual infinite!

The qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics are inextricably linked .

The premises of science in naturalism are that nature is based upon order that is a'priori and intuitive by deduction .

An identity set with an infinite quantity of infinitesimal identity element monads with the quality of infinitude allows one to infer from an irrational number that an endless value implies perpetual and eternal .

The notion of monotheism is inextricably linked with mathematical monism .

 

[james bond]

I'm making a Costco trip today and coming back I sometimes stopped to get Senorita bread and Jollibee chicken . Gosh, I'm tempted haha .

View attachment 462686

It's impossible to be a purist on this -- Non GMO foods: How to Avoid GMOs (for real). I think all one can is try to eat non-GMO and not worry about it for the occasional GMO foods.

 

[james bond]

The notion of monotheism is inextricably linked with mathematical monism .

Give an example of mathematical monism.

Here are the ones I'm familiar with...

"

Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:

• Genus monism: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
• Substance monism: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
• Property monism: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
• Existence monism: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
• Priority monism: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)

"

Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

 

[ReinyDays]

I have not gotten within a hundred miles of divine intervention.

You haven't come within a thousand miles of making any kind of theoretical statement ... all you've stated is "this is wrong and I can't explain why I feel that way" ...

In science, it's not enough to dispute the consensus opinion ... we're obligated to present our alternative ... I've an occasion to denounce the Big Bang Theory, the universe is stationary, I have to have a reason for this, or I'm just being an idiot ... (the speed-of-light is slowing down over time, which only gives us the impression of an expanding universe ... and this can be shown by looking at electron orbital distances in Z > 5 iron atoms) ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Her? Not sure about that.

I gender identify as an uneducated construction laborer ... the proper pronoun is "fuckhead" ...

 

[Hollie]

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Oh, come now. Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity. With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities. All of it, you missed haha . Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time. Why is that?

Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing? It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

It's the general history of supernatural creation.

The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.

I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.

The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.

 

[ding]

I have not gotten within a hundred miles of divine intervention.

You haven't come within a thousand miles of making any kind of theoretical statement ... all you've stated is "this is wrong and I can't explain why I feel that way" ...

In science, it's not enough to dispute the consensus opinion ... we're obligated to present our alternative ... I've an occasion to denounce the Big Bang Theory, the universe is stationary, I have to have a reason for this, or I'm just being an idiot ... (the speed-of-light is slowing down over time, which only gives us the impression of an expanding universe ... and this can be shown by looking at electron orbital distances in Z > 5 iron atoms) ...

That's bullshit and you know it. If you can't tell me why I question it, after hearing why a half a dozen times or so, I'm wasting my time.

Please don't blow smoke up my skirt about what science should and shouldn't do because you are starting to sound like a AGW nut shouting down all opposing thought that challenges its dogma.

Lastly... It's not my theory. My beliefs were informed by experts in the field questioning the status quo because it did not explain the data they were seeing. AND they did present an alternative; genetic mutations.

I'm done. This is bullshit. Fuckin' vainglory.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Monads With Infinitude Are Not In Anthology Because Greeks Sought But Did Not Find "

* Substantive Monism Surmises The Rest *

Give an example of mathematical monism.
Here are the ones I'm familiar with...
"
Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:

• Genus monism: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
• Substance monism: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
• Property monism: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
• Existence monism: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
• Priority monism: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)

"

Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Monadology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Her? Not sure about that.

I gender identify as an uneducated construction laborer ... the proper pronoun is "fuckhead" ...

Don't care anymore.

 

[james bond]

Her? Not sure about that.

I gender identify as an uneducated construction laborer ... the proper pronoun is "fuckhead" ...

 

[Hollie]

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Oh, come now. Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity. With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities. All of it, you missed haha . Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time. Why is that?

Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing? It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

It's the general history of supernatural creation.

Shirley, you have noticed that ID’iot creation’istas open threads in the science forum and then spam the thread with “philosophical” arguments that are best suited in other threads.

 

[Ringtone]

Give an example of mathematical monism.

Here are the ones I'm familiar with...

"

Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:

• Genus monism: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
• Substance monism: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
• Property monism: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
• Existence monism: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
• Priority monism: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)

"

Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Hey, James, I'm still waiting on you to explain how the mathematical concept of an actual infinite—that of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something—(1) exists outside of minds, (2) existed in the minds of Aristotle, C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper, contrary to your contention, but not in yours, and (3) exists in the minds of everyone else (including those of angels and God himself), but not in yours. Thanks.

Winning!

 

[Ringtone]

Actually what I believe both RD and FF missed was the context I presented was centered around speciation as in the origin of a new species.

Not a her? Okey Dokey. I was operating under the impression of the avatar.

I followed your perspective all along, but, then, I actually know what the theory variously holds and what is held to be the evidence for it. Most true believers on interactive social media don't. That is to say, they don't know the empirical data or the evolutionary "theory" well enough to distinguish the actually observed processes and mechanisms of speciation from the theory's hypothetically projected expectations of speciation.

Their belief is the stuff of fideism, i.e., uninformed (blind) faith.

I have no dispute with the man who knows what he believes and why, presuming, of course, that he is accurately informed by the observable evidence and consciously aware of the metaphysical bias that informs (1) his interpretation of the evidence and (2) his understanding of the potentialities of the evidence.

 

[Hollie]

Actually what I believe both RD and FF missed was the context I presented was centered around speciation as in the origin of a new species.

Not a her? Okey Dokey. I was operating under the impression of the avatar.

I followed your perspective all along, but, then, I actually know what the theory variously holds and what is held to be the evidence for it. Most true believers on interactive social media don't. That is to say, they don't know the empirical data or the evolutionary "theory" well enough to distinguish the actually observed processes and mechanisms of speciation from the theory's hypothetically projected expectations of speciation.

Their belief is the stuff of fideism, i.e., uninformed (blind) faith.

I have no dispute with the man who knows what he believes and why, presuming, of course, that he is accurately informed by the observable evidence and consciously aware of the metaphysical bias that informs (1) his interpretation of the evidence and (2) his understanding of the potentialities of the evidence.

It is interesting that the hyper-religious rattle on about “the actually observed processes and mechanisms of speciation from the theory's hypothetically projected expectations of speciation.” when their potentialities of the evidence come from ID’iot creationer websites.

Let’s get you versed on some correct and accurate terms, shall we? There is no need to “quote mine” from ID’iot creationer websites about “hypothetically projected expectations”, we can refer to the peer reviewed data, we can use objective criteria and we can study the biological mechanisms. No so with YEC’ist claims to “The Gawds Did It”.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Of course, you YEC’ists could offer more than claims to supernaturalism and “hypothetically projected expectations” with submission of the YEC’ist / ID’iot creationer “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”. For some reason, the industry of YEC’ists / ID’iot creationers refuse to do so.

 

[james bond]

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Oh, come now. Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity. With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities. All of it, you missed haha . Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time. Why is that?

Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing? It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

It's the general history of supernatural creation.

The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.

I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.

The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.

As I thought, your side has nothing. Not even 1+1=2. Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.

 

[Hollie]

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Oh, come now. Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity. With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities. All of it, you missed haha . Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time. Why is that?

Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing? It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

It's the general history of supernatural creation.

The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.

I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.

The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.

As I thought, your side has nothing. Not even 1+1=2. Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.

I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.