The God of Science

[786]

That's another flaw already explained to you. Science isn't about proving. There are many demonstrations of randomness in nature.

No there are only demonstrations of appeared randomness. You do realize that science derives their math from mathematics and statistics. If they can't say there is a thing called randomness then science can't say it either.

Why would science assert that? It is simply a method and does not assert anything.

I agree science is simply a method, its too sad they made such an assertion. Perhaps such an assertion is needed for them to claim they can explain things which they actually can't.

Nature demonstrates randomness, science is a method.

Randomness is simply a concept without mathematical evidence which is not demonstrated in nature. Please read up on the argument if random numbers are random.

A mixed up train of thought on your part does not conclude with acceptance.

You don't understand that randomness is only an assertion with no mathematical support. Since it can not be said that something is random, even a random number, science can not use random as an explanation unless it wants to assert something unscientific.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Not true. Randomness represents uncertainty. When one flips a coin in the air the resulting heads or tails is uncertain beforehand and not certain. The tossing of dice is another example of randomness where the result is uncertain. The outcome beforehand is uncertain and not predictable. To get a better handle on randomness think uncertainty.

First of all I was talking about a certain outcome, that is that once the coined is flipped and lands you can see the result and say it is "head" or "tail" so you get a certain result, yes the process itself is uncertain (that is my point).

If science used the word uncertain- that would be great. There would be no such discussion if they had used that term. I would be content with Uncertain Mutations, but the fact is they used random and random is more than just uncertainty because it also means chance (implied automatic) which has an underlying assumption as I already explained.

But if they use the word uncertain, its kind of like saying "We don't know", which truly represents the situtation, but scientists just don't want to say that especially about their most important theory of Evolution. They use science in terms as if they were "certain" of these things, that is why Dawkins can claim to be an Evangelical Atheist who uses Science and Evolution, in specific, to attack religions- if he believes that his own belief was based on uncertainty then it would really surprise me that he would attack another philosophy which is based on uncertainty as well. The fact he does is testament to the fact that they hold and preach it as if it was "certain" and random as if it was an actual explanation. You have to realize "uncertainty" is not an explanation but rather a confession.

Peace be unto you

 

[earth]

If science used the word uncertain- that would be great. There would be no such discussion if they had used that term.

From Wikipedia,
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics. According to the uncertainty principle, it is, for instance, impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty.

I guess there will be no more discussion.

 

[786]

From Wikipedia,
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics. According to the uncertainty principle, it is, for instance, impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty.

I guess there will be no more discussion.

That is quantum, what about evolution or do you consider evolution not part of science? Random Mutations, Random Genetic Drift? What about these? Change these and then there will be no discussion

Peace be unto you

 

[James R]

786:

No there are only demonstrations of appeared randomness. You do realize that science derives their math from mathematics and statistics. If they can't say there is a thing called randomness then science can't say it either.

It's worth pointing out that statistics is essentially the study of randomness and probability.

Randomness is simply a concept without mathematical evidence which is not demonstrated in nature.

What do you mean when you say it is "without mathematical evidence"? What kind of mathematical evidence would you require? Be specific.

Also, please explain why a series of coin tosses does not provide "mathematical evidence" of the randomness of coin tosses.

Since it can not be said that something is random, even a random number, science can not use random as an explanation unless it wants to assert something unscientific.

You're tying yourself in logical knots.

 

[786]

786:

It's worth pointing out that statistics is essentially the study of randomness and probability.

This is true.... the fact that there is a branch that studies this doesn't make it to be true. Theology likewise wouldn't be proof for God's existence, would it?

Also Statistics has not proof for a random event. A single event. The only thing they can observe is a "random process" which is a series of tries. But the observation that the series of tries leads to a probability curve actually is not proof that a single event is random. That is why in statistics sample size is very important. They can not make any conclusion about a single event. Every single mutation is a single event- the randomness of each single event is not proved by any theorem.

You were correct to differentiate statistics as the study of "randomness and probability"- they are two different things. A series of events only shows probability, which is only a tool to help them visualize something which otherwise they would not understand. In other words looking at the "probability" of something is only to gain some insight in an event for which they have no other way of knowing something about. The added concept of "randomness", as in automatic or "by chance" is their own conjecture- for which they have no proof. Which I explain below.

What do you mean when you say it is "without mathematical evidence"? What kind of mathematical evidence would you require? Be specific.

Randomness is simply a concept that defines what we can not predict or understand. There can be no evidence for its existence, please refer to my last few replies to "Kurros".

The application of mathematics is more important. Physics! You could predict the outcome of a coin flip if you would take in account all the properties of the coin and all the forces and Laws that act on it and also the material it will land on. Perhaps not accurately at the moment due to the fact that we can't assume that we have complete knowledge of physics yet. Anything other than what was predicted by physics would be considered "random" but this is because we don't know everything about it yet. So again "random" is only a conceptual word used to define an anomaly for which we currently do not have an explanation (something Atheists usually equate with God)

Also, please explain why a series of coin tosses does not provide "mathematical evidence" of the randomness of coin tosses.

Physics should be able to predict a coin flip if they were told all the variables. Unless you are saying that there is something outside of the laws of physics that act upon the coin? (You can include quantum physics if you want) Again the physics may not be able to predict accurately at the moment because there are some unknowns- but because the deviation from the prediction is only due to the unknowns the only reason something is called random. But this doesn't testify to the fact that it is "random" (automatic, by chance)- then again it can not be assumed that it is not random because the assumption that laws of physics can explain everything in the physical world is also currently an assumption. But this is why you can't simply "choose" a side. Due to this testability issue of randomness, it is inherently unscientific explanation because science requires a testable hypothesis. Randomness can not be used as an explanation.

You're tying yourself in logical knots.

Actually no, I'm trying to point out that something which we call a "random number" can not be proven to be random, mathematically. Now since rest of science uses math to derive its concept of random- it is a logical fallacy to use a concept which can not be identified to be random by mathematical standards and use it as some sort of explanation. Randomness is defined and measured- but only because it is a concept that we use for anything that we currently can't explain- this doesn't attest to its proof or as some sort of actual explanation. Now with this understanding look at this quote.

Actual article: Randomness and Mathematical Proof

Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured, a given number cannot be proved to be random.

As I said the randomness can be defined as a concept and "measured" in the sense that it is anything that deviates from predictability and our knowledge of something- but this is an argument from silence and can't be asserted as a mathematical proof, but the bold part is interesting.

So something is random is unprovable. And then it says this about "unprovable statements"

"Unprovable statements can be shown to be false, if they are false, but they cannot be shown to be true."

End of story. A given number can't be proved to be random- To say something is random is a unprovable statement- which can only be shown to be false (if false) but NOT true!

So as I said in response to Kurros- that science can only show "control" not "randomness", which is basically exactly the same conclusion. And since the "true" part is untestable- the use of such a concept as an explanation is unscientific- unless they wish to change their concept of "testable hypothesis".

Peace be unto you

 

[earth]

Randomness is simply a concept that defines what we can not predict or understand.

Randomness is more than a concept. Randomness is observable. Certain natural events are believed (by most physicists) to be completely random. An often-quoted example of such an event is the spontaneous decay of a radioactive atom: there is no way that one can predict the time when such an event will occur, and so the time between two consecutive clicks on a Geiger counter is to all intents and purposes truly random.

Similarly the tumbling balls inside a Lotto machine all obey the laws of physics so in theory it should be possible to predict the lottery numbers given the initial starting positions of all the balls and a precise description of their physical properties. But in practice we can never know these values with sufficient accuracy, and even a tiny discrepancy in the initial conditions will lead to a huge variation in the outcome - making it impossible to predict the lottery numbers that will be drawn by the machine.
http://www.randomnumbergenerator.com/generation.asp

So as I said in response to Kurros- that science can only show "control" not "randomness", which is basically exactly the same conclusion.

Science observes randomness and states randomness can't be controlled because the outcome of a random event is unpredictable.

Phenomena that we cannot predict must be judged random....Patrick Suppes
You're claiming the phenomena doesn't exist and that's nonsense.

 

[James R]

786:

Also Statistics has not proof for a random event.

That's true. Statistics requires a series or collection of events or observations that can then be analysed for patterns of randomness. Or, to look at it another way, statistics tells us what properties to expect from a number random events taken as a set.

The only thing they can observe is a "random process" which is a series of tries. But the observation that the series of tries leads to a probability curve actually is not proof that a single event is random. That is why in statistics sample size is very important. They can not make any conclusion about a single event.

That's also true, but it requires a little qualification. It is possible to do statistical tests on sets of events, and statistics predicts certain outcomes of those tests. The predictions come from analysing what we'd expect if the events were truly random. Therefore, if in fact we observe a deviation in the statistical measures from what the assumption of randomness predicts, then we know that the events were not truly random. On the other hand, if the actual events match what statistics predict, then either (a) the events really were random or (b) the events were very cleverly arranged to give the appearance of randomness.

Every single mutation is a single event- the randomness of each single event is not proved by any theorem.

Are you talking about mutations in biological organisms? That is one of the cases that can be studied. For example, if we look at the frequencies of certain mutations in DNA, we find that they match exactly what we'd expect if the mutations were truly random. Therefore, we conclude either (a) these mutations really are random or (b) something has cleverly arranged for them to mimic true randomness.

If you want to argue that God directs mutation (as I suspect you do), then He is apparently limited (or limits himself) to directing it in a way that is indistinguishable from true randomness.

The application of mathematics is more important. Physics! You could predict the outcome of a coin flip if you would take in account all the properties of the coin and all the forces and Laws that act on it and also the material it will land on. Perhaps not accurately at the moment due to the fact that we can't assume that we have complete knowledge of physics yet. Anything other than what was predicted by physics would be considered "random" but this is because we don't know everything about it yet. So again "random" is only a conceptual word used to define an anomaly for which we currently do not have an explanation (something Atheists usually equate with God)

This is not quite right. There's no problem with our understanding of the physics of a coin toss. We know the physical laws that govern the motion of a coin quite well. The problem is knowing the initial conditions of a flip - the initial orientation of the coin, how much force is exerted on the coin, where it is applied, for exactly how long it is applied, the precise initial angle of the coin and the hand flipping it, the precise effects of air resistance as it flips in the air etc. If we knew all those things, then in principle the result would be predictable. But this doesn't mean the outcome as far as we can predict it is not truly random. Coin tosses, although they are deterministic, are chaotic and therefore unpredictable from the information available to us under ordinary conditions.

If we flip a coin 100 times, on average we'll get 50 heads and 50 tails, but the precise sequence of heads and tails is essentially unpredictable - random. Now, if we were to flip a coin and find that it landed heads 100 times and tails no times, then there's a large probability that something non-random would be going on - perhaps it's a two-headed coin, for instance. The consistent 50-50 proportion confirms that individual flips are random. And not only that proportion, but also the extent to which multiple runs of 100 flips deviate from a precise 50-50 result, which is one focus of the subject of statistics.

Physics should be able to predict a coin flip if they were told all the variables. Unless you are saying that there is something outside of the laws of physics that act upon the coin? (You can include quantum physics if you want)

No, of course not.

It is worth mentioning, however, that some quantum effects do have the kind of absolute randomness you're looking for. An electron can be put into what is called a superposition of two equally-likely spin states, for example. When a measurement of the state is made, the result is truly unpredictable (random), as far as our best current theories of physics can tell. This is not the same as for the coin flip, which is in principle predictable but practically unpredictable. The quantum effect is not predictable even in principle.

Actually no, I'm trying to point out that something which we call a "random number" can not be proven to be random, mathematically.

That's a kind of obvious point. Is 17885 a random number? The question is essentially meaningless. (I've read your article on information theory and randomness linked above; it uses a "different" definition of randomness from the usual.)

Randomness is defined and measured- but only because it is a concept that we use for anything that we currently can't explain- this doesn't attest to its proof or as some sort of actual explanation.

That's not true. There are mathematical rules or "laws" of randomness, as I've explained above. The label "random" can't just be applied to anything we don't understand. Randomness has certain statistical properties that are testable.

---

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the "God of Science". Are you saying that the concept of randomness replaces God in science?

 

[786]

Randomness is more than a concept. Randomness is observable. Certain natural events are believed (by most physicists) to be completely random. An often-quoted example of such an event is the spontaneous decay of a radioactive atom: there is no way that one can predict the time when such an event will occur, and so the time between two consecutive clicks on a Geiger counter is to all intents and purposes truly random.

Lets see... could it be there is something unique about atoms- in other words there is something that is acting on atoms which is unique to them- perhaps all atoms aren't the same to begin with (ever thought about that?)- this is a possible explanation for this phenomenon. Asserting that it is random is again simply a premature assertion.

Actually this example only reaffirms what I said. Random is something we just can't explain. These people did an experiment on the decay of atoms and they had expected them to be the same rate but it wasn't- so this is the big "unkown"- how could it be? All atoms are the same?- Maybe they aren't- Is this is a possibility, sure... So again what is random being used for here? The unknown!

Similarly the tumbling balls inside a Lotto machine all obey the laws of physics so in theory it should be possible to predict the lottery numbers given the initial starting positions of all the balls and a precise description of their physical properties. But in practice we can never know these values with sufficient accuracy, and even a tiny discrepancy in the initial conditions will lead to a huge variation in the outcome - making it impossible to predict the lottery numbers that will be drawn by the machine.

http://www.randomnumbergenerator.com/generation.asp

But this is due to "tiny discrepancy"- since they don't know where the discrepancy is (thus unknown) they call it random. How is this any different? The only reason they call it random is because they can't explain it- that doesn't automatically serve as a proof for randomness- this is an argument from silence.

Science observes randomness and states randomness can't be controlled because the outcome of a random event is unpredictable.

Wrong again. Science doesn't observe anything random. If you call something random just because it is unknown, then the very fact that it is unknown alludes to the fact that it can not be controlled by scientists yet. Predictability is not the only supposed property of what we call "random".

Phenomena that we cannot predict must be judged random....Patrick Suppes

This guy has it wrong, because predictability is not the only thing about random. Secondly the fact that you can't predict something can be due to the fact that you don't know enough about a system to actually make a prediction- then again randomness is an explanation for the unknown not that it can be proven or observed.

You're claiming the phenomena doesn't exist and that's nonsense.

I never made such a claim, if I did then I probably missed a word while writing it. Only thing I have been trying to claim is that randomness can not be shown through mathematics from which the concept is derived into science. And since the concept itself is untestable (not that it doesn't exist) it is unscientific to use it. Also since it is a concept that is used to explain what we can not explain it is the religious equivalent of God, which like randomoness is used to explain what we can't. Isn't one of the arguments of Atheists that God was created by humans to explain what they couldn't understand?

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

786:That's true. Statistics requires a series or collection of events or observations that can then be analysed for patterns of randomness. Or, to look at it another way, statistics tells us what properties to expect from a number random events taken as a set.

That is an assumption that they (data-points, event) are random to begin with. This is also an assumption that something being a controlled event couldn't give the same results- which it can or at least the possibility exists. To simply assert that we can make a probability curve isn't proof enough for randomness. You can't say the probability curve associates with something "random" when in fact it can be a controlled event that can give the same result. So the assumption is premature.

That's also true, but it requires a little qualification. It is possible to do statistical tests on sets of events, and statistics predicts certain outcomes of those tests. The predictions come from analysing what we'd expect if the events were truly random.

That can be an effect of psuedorandomness, which can be created on a algorithm basis and thus not completely random. Also that doesn't negate the fact that the result could also match a controlled event. Both cases are unprovable or testable thus the assumption is unscientific.

(a) the events really were random or (b) the events were very cleverly arranged to give the appearance of randomness.

True, but the "appearance of randomness" would actually mean psuedorandomness as the fact that it was controlled wouldn't mean randomness. Since this other possibility exists the assumption that something is random is an assertion without proof.

Are you talking about mutations in biological organisms? That is one of the cases that can be studied. For example, if we look at the frequencies of certain mutations in DNA, we find that they match exactly what we'd expect if the mutations were truly random. Therefore, we conclude either (a) these mutations really are random or (b) something has cleverly arranged for them to mimic true randomness.

Psuedorandomness could yield the appearance of randomness in this scenerio. But you are correct to point out "a" and "b"- the choice between them can't be tested and thus unscientific to assert one over the other.

If you want to argue that God directs mutation (as I suspect you do), then He is apparently limited (or limits himself) to directing it in a way that is indistinguishable from true randomness.

Could be pink bunnies.. This is also a false assumption. As you have said that statistics looks at sets of data and gives a verdict of random (if it fits) to everything that entails the dataset- This is also a false assumption. It is possible also that everything was controlled to appear like "random"- but it is possible that a select few mutations were specifically caused with absolute control. For example all the mutations were cause of physic laws combined- this would be a controlled event, but to specifically mutate something it is a "highly controlled". For example humans specifically making something to mutate in a specific manner. So there is "double control"- the laws of physics- and the specificity designed by humans. In statistics these data-points will be indistinguishable simply because the trend says otherwise, so everything will be deemed appeared to be "random"- which is not necessarily true.

This is not quite right. There's no problem with our understanding of the physics of a coin toss. We know the physical laws that govern the motion of a coin quite well.

Great.

The problem is knowing the initial conditions of a flip - the initial orientation of the coin, how much force is exerted on the coin, where it is applied, for exactly how long it is applied, the precise initial angle of the coin and the hand flipping it, the precise effects of air resistance as it flips in the air etc. If we knew all those things, then in principle the result would be predictable. But this doesn't mean the outcome as far as we can predict it is not truly random. Coin tosses, although they are deterministic, are chaotic and therefore unpredictable from the information available to us under ordinary conditions.

Agreed, but again as you point out the only reason we call it random is because we can't predict it with the information we currently have. Nothing is to say that we can't with more info? So again the conclusion of randomness is based upon the "unknown" factor which is an untestable assumption.

If we flip a coin 100 times, on average we'll get 50 heads and 50 tails, but the precise sequence of heads and tails is essentially unpredictable - random. Now, if we were to flip a coin and find that it landed heads 100 times and tails no times, then there's a large probability that something non-random would be going on - perhaps it's a two-headed coin, for instance. The consistent 50-50 proportion confirms that individual flips are random. And not only that proportion, but also the extent to which multiple runs of 100 flips deviate from a precise 50-50 result, which is one focus of the subject of statistics.

Your proposed "b" solution above is a possibility. Secondly lets look at another condition. Suppose you have a hat with numbers on pieces of paper and you draw them with your eyes closed- statistics would have us believe this is random. Suppose you do that same experiment with your eyes opened and the person looking at it- this would allow the person to draw what he wants- this would be non-random.

Having the same experiment with different conditions changes a supposedly "random" experiment into a "non-random" one. But what was changed between the two? The only thing that changed was that now the person had MORE INFO when making a draw. So an event which was deemed "random" before was only because of the lack of information- said in another way "unknown"! The more we learn about something the more we reduce the option of "random". That is why science always shows "control".

No, of course not.

That's good.

It is worth mentioning, however, that some quantum effects do have the kind of absolute randomness you're looking for. An electron can be put into what is called a superposition of two equally-likely spin states, for example. When a measurement of the state is made, the result is truly unpredictable (random), as far as our best current theories of physics can tell. This is not the same as for the coin flip, which is in principle predictable but practically unpredictable. The quantum effect is not predictable even in principle.

The only reason quantum effect is not predictable even in principle is because in principle they can't have enough information to predict it. This basically follows from the Uncertainty Principle- which basically says we're limited to what we can know. Since we can't know everything "principally" anything outside would be "principally" unpredictable- this is not proof of randomness. And again this only shows that you are saying something is "random" due to the"unknown" factor. Nothing more. Otherwise it is an argument from silence which in itself is not proof and as such shouldn't be used as an explanation in science.

That's a kind of obvious point. Is 17885 a random number? The question is essentially meaningless. (I've read your article on information theory and randomness linked above; it uses a "different" definition of randomness from the usual.)

Sometimes obvious points are important to understand.

That's not true. There are mathematical rules or "laws" of randomness, as I've explained above. The label "random" can't just be applied to anything we don't understand. Randomness has certain statistical properties that are testable.

Would you mind telling me properties of "random" that do not depend on the factor that something is "unknown" about the system? If something is unknown- that is the end of story- to assert it is random is unscientific at best.

---

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the "God of Science". Are you saying that the concept of randomness replaces God in science?

Just as Atheists accuse religions that Humans developed the idea of God to explain the "unknowns" of their time, so I claim that scientists have come up with a concept to explain their "unknowns"- if the former can't be considered an explanation then the latter can not be either. But even apart from religion, the fact is the assumption is unscientific and thus should not belong in science.

Peace be unto you

 

[earth]

786,
Problem: A spinner has 4 equal sectors colored yellow, blue, green and red. What are the chances of landing on blue after spinning the spinner? What are the chances of landing on red?

Solution: The chances of landing on blue are 1 in 4, or one fourth. The chances of landing on red are 1 in 4, or one fourth.

This experiment is a situation involving chance or probability that leads to results called outcomes.

This is a test of randomness and the outcome is expressed. Your assertion that randomness can’t be tested has been proven false.

 

[786]

786,
Problem: A spinner has 4 equal sectors colored yellow, blue, green and red. What are the chances of landing on blue after spinning the spinner? What are the chances of landing on red?

Solution: The chances of landing on blue are 1 in 4, or one fourth. The chances of landing on red are 1 in 4, or one fourth.

This experiment is a situation involving chance or probability that leads to results called outcomes.

This is a test of randomness and the outcome is expressed. Your assertion that randomness can’t be tested has been proven false.

No, there is an experimental design flaw. It doesn't account or control for a potential unknown mechanism that the outcome was controlled. Also the assumption is that it does have anything to do with randomness to begin with when the outcome could easily be a controlled event but we are unaware of it.

Also clearly you can't say anything more so are resorting to "experimental" proof. But if the experimental design can't account for the unknown factor- it is no different than arguing using logic (which we were previously doing).

Peace be unto you

 

[earth]

No there is an experimental design flaw. It doesn't account or control for a potential unknown mechanism that the outcome was controlled.

Observation must be lacking in your vocabulary. Randomness can't be controlled only observerd. Because the outcome is unpredictable.

Science has proven randomness to exist. If you find yourself at odds with scientific evidence then you are in the minority. All my examples of randomness have been good ones.

 

[786]

Observation must be lacking in your vocabulary. Randomness can't be controlled only observerd. Because the outcome is unpredictable.

I never said that the experiment needed to control for "randomness"- this is what you are testing I would be stupid to say to control this- I am a bio major so I know at least something about experimental design (hopefully ). I said the experiment needed to control for the possibility that it was controlled event. Which it can't, so the observation can be associated with a "random event" and a controlled 'event', choosing one over the other is not observed or proven.

Science has proven randomness to exist.

Science doesn't prove anything, at least that's what they say. Science uses the concept of random from math. If math can't say it exists, so can't science. Also it seems you've totally skipped the discussion that was previously done- abandoned my response and are basically repeating the same thing from another view as if you were in denial.

If you find yourself at odds with scientific evidence then you are in the minority.

Being in the majority doesn't automatically make you correct, science has proven many things opposite as to what conventional science said some times. So they took complete u-turns which means the majority was wrong many times. For example the majority of scientists laughed at Barbara McClintock for her hypothesis that DNA fragments (transposons) move- sure enough they were all wrong.

All my examples of randomness have been good ones.

All of your examples were responded to already but you chose not to refute my response.

Peace be unto you

 

[earth]

All of your examples were responded to already but you chose not to refute my response.

Peace be unto you

Phenomena that we cannot predict must be judged random, I refute your responses.

 

[786]

Phenomena that we cannot predict must be judged random, I refute your response.

Wow... that is pretty much meaningless and goes on to strengthen my point that randomness is only a concept that tries to explain the "unknown"- which has no scientific relevance and thus should be kept out of science.

And if you realize what you said it is no different than saying "God did it". Thanks for proving my point.

Peace be unto you

 

[earth]

786,
Wow... that is pretty much meaningless......

Meaningless defines this thread with you at the head. The God of science my ass.

 

[786]

Meaningless defines this thread with you at the head. The God of science my ass.

I see denial..

Peace be unto you

 

[earth]

786,
According to your posts in this thread nothing random is testable and God is an un-testable assumption. Yet you think you’ve made a case though having nothing in which to work. Science is about observing the same repeatable events. You provide nothing using scientific methods or understanding yet named this thread the “God of science“. What science?

 

[786]

786,
According to your posts in this thread nothing random is testable and God is an un-testable assumption.

True.

Yet you think you’ve made a case though having nothing in which to work.

Yes... You work in the confines of science. I've shown that randomness is an unscientific assumption and thus should be kept out. There is nothing to "in which to work" when the very idea is unscientific.

Science is about observing the same repeatable events. You provide nothing using scientific methods

The point of the thread was to show that "randomness" doesn't work with the scientific method to start with. It is not I who put "random mutations" in science, it is the scientists. The question was to "justify" this, and quite frankly no one has been able to do that using the scientific method and the knowledge that a hypothesis must be "testable".And your remarks about observations have already been answered previously.

It shouldn't be hard to show randomness as valid if it was scientific to begin with. I am questioning this assertion which is currently found as part of science. I have not made the claim that randomness doesn't exist or does exist- my only question is to justify that randomness can be used as a scientific explanation. I claim it can't because the idea can't be tested- which yields the idea unscientific (which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist).

yet named this thread the “God of science“.

If God was created by humans to explain the unknowns and science created randomness to explain the unknowns that just means Science has a God which is called randomness. I can't understand why you can't follow this.

What science?

The science that teaches you anything about "randomness". I'm simply ridding science of a unscientific assumption. I'm only trying to purify science not attack it.

Peace be unto you