Multiple changes versus one big change?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2015, 08:40 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(18-01-2015 06:22 PM)AlephBet Wrote:  
(18-01-2015 12:31 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  I'm arguing on YouTube *waits for laughter and comments about how that's the problem right there to die down* with someone who is not a complete moron *waits for exclamations of shock and denial that this can be the case to die down*. The topic is evolution. I seem to be out of my depth. Specifically it's about this video (on irreducible complexity) and my comments below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US0gK6V0TI4

To try to truncate it:



We have some more back and forth after that, buuut... I'm beginning to wonder if I'm off in la-la land at this point. Any thoughts on this?

In all of reality, you follow the shadows to see something above with more dimension that is hidden. DNA is the shadow of the process to build life. From information held in a storage bit, you get an oak tree. The shadow of the information is founded on a pattern. All things abide in that pattern. A tree expresses in the same fractal (ration of 1:1.618) as a galaxy. At the heart of all things is information moved by governed mathematics and force, around which, there is a center. Volution is movement around a center. E in Latin means out of. Out of the volution is an accurate description.

Our language tree even follows this predictable pattern. All things abide in the symmetry of something we cannot observe called consciousness. Collapsing wave function cannot be determined (as it is indeterminate) apart from the thing formatting it. Consciousness is the center of the volution. Changes are by design, which renders the argument null. Complexity cannot arise apart from a mind. Light must be collapsed by mind, or it is not a particle, but a wave of indeterminate potential. Law is a restriction to the potential of what is possible, although you can't get to this evident truth unless your are determined to see it. No collapse (blindness) apart from knowing it is possible.

Science, of course, shows our universe as digital and not analog. Again, information is the root you are arguing.

Since this is Atheism and Theism, I can show you the truth with evidence.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The word Father in Hebrew is Aleph Bet. See a connection? Light shines, then illuminates the image. We are the image. Irreducible as we can be.

IF THIS ISN’T SPAMMING I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 08:56 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(19-01-2015 08:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(18-01-2015 06:22 PM)AlephBet Wrote:  In all of reality, you follow the shadows to see something above with more dimension that is hidden. DNA is the shadow of the process to build life. From information held in a storage bit, you get an oak tree. The shadow of the information is founded on a pattern. All things abide in that pattern. A tree expresses in the same fractal (ration of 1:1.618) as a galaxy. At the heart of all things is information moved by governed mathematics and force, around which, there is a center. Volution is movement around a center. E in Latin means out of. Out of the volution is an accurate description.

Our language tree even follows this predictable pattern. All things abide in the symmetry of something we cannot observe called consciousness. Collapsing wave function cannot be determined (as it is indeterminate) apart from the thing formatting it. Consciousness is the center of the volution. Changes are by design, which renders the argument null. Complexity cannot arise apart from a mind. Light must be collapsed by mind, or it is not a particle, but a wave of indeterminate potential. Law is a restriction to the potential of what is possible, although you can't get to this evident truth unless your are determined to see it. No collapse (blindness) apart from knowing it is possible.

Science, of course, shows our universe as digital and not analog. Again, information is the root you are arguing.

Since this is Atheism and Theism, I can show you the truth with evidence.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The word Father in Hebrew is Aleph Bet. See a connection? Light shines, then illuminates the image. We are the image. Irreducible as we can be.

IF THIS ISN’T SPAMMING I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS

Because you are discussing questioning answers, not answering questions. Answers are found in science, then tagged with metaphor to help describe what was found. In all cases, the best metaphors were already available from the Bible. By denying this, you miss the best explanation to the question. You will hear Christians debate using the answers for one good reason--they are the correct answers.

That's not spam. I provide you with the correct way to see your question. Awareness does this to axioms. Lower axioms hold contradictions and paradox. Higher axioms resolve the lower questions. One higher axiom resolves to the most evident answer, which turns out to be the simplest answer.

Don't blame me for holding the higher ground.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(19-01-2015 08:56 AM)AlephBet Wrote:  
(19-01-2015 08:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  IF THIS ISN’T SPAMMING I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS

Because you are discussing questioning answers, not answering questions. Answers are found in science, then tagged with metaphor to help describe what was found. In all cases, the best metaphors were already available from the Bible. By denying this, you miss the best explanation to the question. You will hear Christians debate using the answers for one good reason--they are the correct answers.

That's not spam. I provide you with the correct way to see your question. Awareness does this to axioms. Lower axioms hold contradictions and paradox. Higher axioms resolve the lower questions. One higher axiom resolves to the most evident answer, which turns out to be the simplest answer.

Don't blame me for holding the higher ground.

YOU HAVE SPAMMED THE SAME FUCKING BULLSHIT ON EVERY THREAD YOU HAVE BEEN ON, NOT TO MENTION THE PROSELYTIZING WITH SCRIPTURE.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 12:15 PM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2015 02:55 PM by Zippo.)
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
Quote:Because you are discussing questioning answers, not answering questions. Answers are found in science, then tagged with metaphor to help describe what was found. In all cases, the best metaphors were already available from the Bible. By denying this, you miss the best explanation to the question. You will hear Christians debate using the answers for one good reason--they are the correct answers.

Questioning answers is the way to go. An answer should be questioned util you are left with only the truth. The "best explanation" is useless if it's only the "best" because you like it or it suits your needs. Until the truth is known, one must keep asking questions.

Quote:That's not spam. I provide you with the correct way to see your question. Awareness does this to axioms. Lower axioms hold contradictions and paradox. Higher axioms resolve the lower questions. One higher axiom resolves to the most evident answer, which turns out to be the simplest answer.

See? When you claim to resolve the questions, you are no longer looking for answers. You found and answer and are simply satisfied by it instead of scrutinizing it.

Quote:Don't blame me for holding the higher ground.

We don't. We just pity the fact that you stopped asking questions.

Actually, that would be generalizing. A lot are also sick of your preachy and pompous posts.

Have a nice day

Edit: My post wasn't showing up
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(18-01-2015 06:22 PM)AlephBet Wrote:  Volution is movement around a center. E in Latin means out of.
I'm sure someone has already asked you this, but can you please apply this logic to 'equate', 'equip', 'email', 'egret', 'elevant', 'elephant', and 'eel' (that last one is really bad, being out of out of L, so either seriously out of L or some sort of double negative). If you chop up words into smaller bits, the result is very unlikely to be coherent unless it's a compound word construct, which as far as I know 'evolution' is not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
To everyone else but our current nut job, thanks for providing useful things to say. So far no response, but then he'd probably claim I haven't said anything to refute him yet.

And houseofcantor? Well aware of it (if fact anticipated you in my OP Tongue). Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(19-01-2015 01:51 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  
(18-01-2015 06:22 PM)AlephBet Wrote:  Volution is movement around a center. E in Latin means out of.
I'm sure someone has already asked you this, but can you please apply this logic to 'equate', 'equip', 'email', 'egret', 'elevant', 'elephant', and 'eel' (that last one is really bad, being out of out of L, so either seriously out of L or some sort of double negative). If you chop up words into smaller bits, the result is very unlikely to be coherent unless it's a compound word construct, which as far as I know 'evolution' is not.

Actually, 'volution' is a word and his basic point is correct. However (and this is a huuuuge however),
he does the crazy dance with making connections and inferences he has no basis for making.

We have, and have had, others here who will connect unrelated and even non-existent dots to make convoluted pictures.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 02:27 AM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(19-01-2015 02:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, 'volution' is a word and his basic point is correct. However (and this is a huuuuge however),
he does the crazy dance with making connections and inferences he has no basis for making.

We have, and have had, others here who will connect unrelated and even non-existent dots to make convoluted pictures.

The point is that smaller bits which could be words are not always and necessarily words. When I make a remark, am I doing something again (re-mark)? Before means to exist at the front (be-fore)? Does equip mean to be out of making a witty remark (e-quip)? Though, yes, I should have stopped at equip. I was tired and posting by cell phone.

I'm also wondering which part of his basic point is correct? The evolve means to come out of a rotation? Or just that e means out of and volve means rotate?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 04:58 PM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(20-01-2015 02:27 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  I'm also wondering which part of his basic point is correct? The evolve means to come out of a rotation? Or just that e means out of and volve means rotate?

The latter. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 05:52 PM
RE: Multiple changes versus one big change?
(20-01-2015 02:27 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  The point is that smaller bits which could be words are not always and necessarily words.

atheist=a-thiest=godless
around=a-round=square
atrophy=a-trophy=loser

Am I getting it?
Thumbsup

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: