New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

[Jack_]

Jack_:

Can you give me an example of a recursive function so I know what you're talking about?

wiki it

No it doesn't. The start of life is not part of the theory of evolution.

This is silly, if you do not know the properties of the starting point, how can you possibly know the properties down the road.

This sounds like science to me.

 

[Jack_]

Got a reference to the proof?

Sure, I do not need one.

When do planets defy the laws of nature?

Do they ever get away from their orbits because they want to.

Say, are you going to let me teach you about the failings of Relativity or are you going to run in that thread?

 

[Trippy]

Your "model" is not consistent logic.

Otherwise, you have the math and chemical operations to prove this.

I will train you from math.

The natural numbers are closed under the + and * operations.

That means if you have a NN and add a NN you get a NN.

Get it?

Chemistry is closed under chemical operators.

You take a chemical plus a chemical and you get a chemical.

But, life is proven more than can be expressed by chemistry.

So, your "theory" is inconsistent with nature.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous these statements are?

Life.
Is.
Chemistry.

So you need a schooling in this?

Using electrical sparks as energy (lightening) I can create amino acids (among other things) the essential ingredients in life.
Self replicating strands of RNA have been created (as in the step before DNA).

Your 'point' is bogus.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

OK, if you are willing to confess science does not believe that the BB occured.

Science does not believe that the Big Bang occured. Science has observed that the universe has undergone varying periods of inflation. The Big Bang theory is one of many that models universal inflation.

...and then galaxies and then life evolved from that, then fine.

As was explained, the Theory of Evolution only applies to biological life. It is a model of adaptation for energy collection machines. If what you are asking is "do all the sciences combined show a progression of change in our universe (including life on Earth)?" then the answer is yes.

State that.

Oh, once you state that, then you will need to explain instinct mathematically.

Obviously I stated something quite different than the options you had in mind.

 

[Jack_]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous these statements are?

Life.
Is.
Chemistry.

So you need a schooling in this?

Using electrical sparks as energy (lightening) I can create amino acids (among other things) the essential ingredients in life.
Self replicating strands of RNA have been created (as in the step before DNA).

Your 'point' is bogus.

You are funny.

Where are you going to use this "rna", in space?

You have not developed the technology of the cell.

The RNA has no value except in the cell.

You are in a chicken and egg problem.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Oh, I am not a believer, I only deal in logic.

Thats going to be a problem for you because logic without a basis in reality produces incorrect results.

 

[Jack_]

Science does not believe that the Big Bang occured. Science has observed that the universe has undergone varying periods of inflation. The Big Bang theory is one of many that models universal inflation.



As was explained, the Theory of Evolution only applies to biological life. It is a model of adaptation for energy collection machines. If what you are asking is "do all the sciences combined show a progression of change in our universe (including life on Earth)?" then the answer is yes.



Obviously I stated something quite different than the options you had in mind.

The theory has no value for properties from one point to another unless the initial properties are known.

This is obvious from recursion theory.

Let me guess, you are talking about the religion of science.

 

[Jack_]

Thats going to be a problem for you because logic without a basis in reality produces incorrect results.

oh, this would mean you cannot use logic as a basis for science.

I can see that in your thinking.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...
Can you give me an example of a recursive function so I know what you're talking about?
...

I think he is referring to a recursive function... that is a function that will keep on calling itself until some condition is met to step it; after which, it unwinds and yields a final result. Factorial would be a good example.

 

[Trippy]

You are funny.

Where are you going to use this "rna", in space?

You have not developed the technology of the cell.

The RNA has no value except in the cell.

You are in a chicken and egg problem.

Assuming that it has to have 'value' is a fallacy.
Value is a human trait that human's assign to things.
And who said anything about space?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The theory has no value for properties from one point to another unless the initial properties are known.

Why do you think some "initial properties" are there?

This is obvious from recursion theory.

It sounds like you're hung up on recursion for some reason.

Let me guess, you are talking about the religion of science.

Quite the incorrect guess, but you never claimed to be accurate so I wont hold it against you.

 

[Jack_]

I think he is referring to a recursive function... that is a function that will keep on calling itself until some condition is met to step it; after which, it unwinds and yields a final result. Factorial would be a good example.

No,

that is the software definition.

I am talking about the defnition in mathematical logic.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

oh, this would mean you cannot use logic as a basis for science.

I can see that in your thinking.

Correct. Reality is the basis for science. Logic is a tool.

 

[Anita Meyer]

And you've demonstrated you don't even understand science by saying "only a theory". Evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact. What the 'theory' is the method by which evolution occurs, ie via natural selection, just as the 'theory of gravity' is not the idea gravity exists but the mechanism by which gravity acts. To trot out the 'its only a theory' ignorant crap is to demonstrate you haven't read a single book on science.

Alphanumeric, the problem you pose with gravity compared to evolution is that gravity does not need proof that it exists or is functioning since we are witnessing it (even though we cannot physically see it), however evolution on the other hand is something that is an illusion in the human mind that chooses to see similarities in transitional forms. It may be a good notion, but science cannot account for it physically happening, nor are we experiencing it - nor will we ever. Every living thing is a reproduction of its own kind, and this is something that we can visible see.

Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
But let me remind you that there is no “confirming” evidence of evolution taking place. ”

Yes there is.

You only need to look at the effect that El nino/La Nina has on the Galapagos Finches to see that.
Or the effect that Air Pollution has had on certain breeds of Moth.
Or Fruit flies.

Trippy, now in the case of the Galapagos island and the birds there, this is indeed natural selection. But here is the kicker… natural selection is NOT EVOLUTION! When the DNA of the birds are analyzed they are still the same and match with others of the same species. In other words, nothing has changed. The only thing that is changed in the birds is possibly their beaks or other small features which have changed to adapt to the food or weather recourses on that island. Nothing more! They are still the same bird… nothing truly has changed.

“ When science cannot account for where new genes come from, this then is only speculation, which let me remind you rides on the wing of FAITH (like a religion itself), which is believing in something that cannot be verified. Or should I say, things not seen but believed. ”

Science can account for where new genes come from; the modern evolutionary synthesis does that quite adequately. No need for faith there.

James please cite your sources on this?

Using electrical sparks as energy (lightening) I can create amino acids (among other things) the essential ingredients in life.
Self replicating strands of RNA have been created (as in the step before DNA).

Trippy, to date, NOBODY has been able to create all “left handed” amino acids which are necessary to create something living. All living things (that are alive) are composed of “left handed” amino acids. Science (to date) has NOT been able to replicate this.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

 

[Jack_]

Why do you think some "initial properties" are there?

The initial properties are not my problem, they are yours and that of science.

If they cannot specify them, then science cannot possibly predict the next step even as a probabilistic function.

Well, science can and does.

I am simply stating a fact of logic that the religion of science does not obey and violates the initial condition logic.

 

[Jack_]

Correct. Reality is the basis for science. Logic is a tool.

Wrong, logic is a skeleton to evaluate nature.

All of your junk science must adhere and submit to its rules.

Clearly, science missed a meeting.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

No,

that is the software definition.

I am talking about the defnition in mathematical logic.

Not to split hairs, but aren't computers mathematical automaters? Additionally, is this not a math?

 

[Jack_]

Assuming that it has to have 'value' is a fallacy.
Value is a human trait that human's assign to things.
And who said anything about space?

Man, value in this case means the ability to operate chemically.

Why do I have to explain everything?

 

[noodler]

Now in the case of the Galapagos island and the birds there, this is indeed natural selection. But here is the kicker… natural selection is NOT EVOLUTION! When the DNA of the birds are analyzed they are still the same and match with others of the same species. In other words, nothing has changed.

That's not a very good description of the process of species diverging over time, as they become geographically separated and adapt to local conditions.

There are initial conditions for evolution: one is the existence of a species, the other is environmental conditions, which provide the natural selection--in essence this "forces" the DNA of a species to diverge and radiate. All the different species are related by having had a common ancestor before populations with the ancestral genes got separated.

So the real kicker is that this explains why there are so many related species, genetically as well as related in external form and function (i.e. niche). Unfortunately Noah doesn't cut it, and nor does the Grand Canyon.

 

[Jack_]

Not to split hairs, but aren't computers mathematical automaters? Additionally, is this not a math?

It is the case that computers are turing machines and thus an implementation of recursive functions.

However, we are dealing with the initial conditions of which a computer must be programmed.

That is what we are talking about when dealing with TOE.