04 Nov 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes it is impossible to prove false claims, so why do you do it.....actually I know why you do it, and it is because you are envious of God and want to lord it over this material world.....good luck with that.
No, you are making false claims. But I don't understand where you get the idea that the onus of proof is with the person making false claims. Surely it is impossible to prove false claims?
[b]and I have already given my proof but you reject it and I cant force you to accept it.
You have not given a mathematical proof. You don't even know what a mathematical proof is.[/b]
04 Nov 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuPlease, go take your pills...
Yes it is impossible to prove false claims, so why do you do it.....actually I know why you do it, and it is because you are envious of God and want to lord it over this material world.....good luck with that.
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by vishvahetu“...It is demonstrated mathematically that is not posibble for systems of lower levels of organization to spontaneously tansform themselves to states of higher organization, without the introduction of additional specific information. ...”
It is demonstrated mathematically that is not posibble for systems of lower levels of organization to spontaneously tansform themselves to states of higher organization, without the introduction of additional specific information.
Cells cannot animate themslves to mutate or divide or change without intelligence, and science rejects intelligence saying ...[text shortened]... ing as "the unseen hand of natural selection" its been dihonestly invented to support atheism.
Can you show a link to this “mathematical proof”?
-Actually, it would be totally irrelevant even if such a “mathematical proof” existed! Reason:
You say; “... without the introduction of additional specific information...” but why would a new mutation that produces a new gene NOT be an “ introduction of additional specific information”?
Evolution can incrementally produce greater complexity by one such mutation at a time.
-All that I said about Michael J. Behe flawed hypothesis on “irreducible complexity” still stands.
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonLink is the book "Mechanistic and Non Mechanistic Science" by Richard L Thomson..........just google the title.
“...It is demonstrated mathematically that is not posibble for systems of lower levels of organization to spontaneously tansform themselves to states of higher organization, without the introduction of additional specific information. ...”
Can you show a link to this “mathematical proof”?
-Actually, it would be totally irrelevant even if such a ...[text shortened]... ll that I said about Michael J. Behe flawed hypothesis on “irreducible complexity” still stands.
14 Nov 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuI did; and this is what I got;
Link is the book "Mechanistic and Non Mechanistic Science" by Richard L Thomson..........just google the title.
http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/physics-metaphysics.html
He is basically a mathematician that believes in a load of vague mystical pseudo-science stuff and shows no evidence for his vague claims that are so vague that I find it difficult to imagine what would constitute 'evidence' for them!
Thus, you still shown no “mathematical proof” of your claim although, as I have already said, it would be totally irrelevant even if such a “mathematical proof” existed because you say; “... without the introduction of additional specific information...” but why would a new mutation that produces a new gene NOT be an “ introduction of additional specific information”?
As I already said, Evolution can incrementally produce greater complexity by one such mutation at a time.
14 Nov 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThis web site: that you posted up.... (vedic science.net) is by someone I have never heard of, and there are many Indians who explain their view of science and the Vedas, but I would not say it is authorized, because many of these Indians are following their own speculative process and interpretation of the Vedic teachings. ( usually impersonal and atheistic)
I did; and this is what I got;
http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/physics-metaphysics.html
He is basically a mathematician that believes in a load of vague mystical pseudo-science stuff and shows no evidence for his vague claims that are so vague that I find it difficult to imagine what would constitute 'evidence' for them!
Thus, you stil ...[text shortened]... y said, Evolution can incrementally produce greater complexity by one such mutation at a time.
Did you know there are over 400 translations of the Bhagavavd Gita....but their is only( 1 that is authorized.)
Did you actually read that book I suggested ( Mechanistic and Non Mechanistic Science) by Richard L Thompson.
14 Nov 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuAccording to Wikipedia:
This web site: that you posted up.... (vedic science.net) is by someone I have never heard of, and there are many Indians who explain their view of science and the Vedas, but I would not say it is authorized, because many of these Indians are following their own speculative process and interpretation of the Vedic teachings. ( usually impersonal and athei ...[text shortened]... lly read that book I suggested ( Mechanistic and Non Mechanistic Science) by Richard L Thompson.
"In 1993 Thompson co-wrote Forbidden Archeology. The book claims that humans have lived on the earth for millions, or billions, of years, and that the scientific establishment has suppressed the fossil evidence for extreme human antiquity."
Human beings billions of years ago? Someone got to be kidding! 😀
14 Nov 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasActually longer than that......!
According to Wikipedia:
"In 1993 Thompson co-wrote Forbidden Archeology. The book claims that humans have lived on the earth for millions, or billions, of years, and that the scientific establishment has suppressed the fossil evidence for extreme human antiquity."
Human beings billions of years ago? Someone got to be kidding! 😀
15 Nov 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou base this proposterous idea out of one 'evidence' when there are thousands, no millions, evidences that humans came into being million of years ago.
Why dont you do some research and study......and you wont be in the dark.
Are you really so desinformed...? Do you really believe in anything? Is this vedic, do you think?
15 Nov 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't think he believes it, he just wants to sell the books.
You base this proposterous idea out of one 'evidence' when there are thousands, no millions, evidences that humans came into being million of years ago.
Are you really so desinformed...? Do you really believe in anything? Is this vedic, do you think?
18 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuIrrelevant.
This web site: that you posted up.... (vedic science.net) is by someone I have never heard of, and there are many Indians who explain their view of science and the Vedas, but I would not say it is authorized, because many of these Indians are following their own speculative process and interpretation of the Vedic teachings. ( usually impersonal and athei ...[text shortened]... lly read that book I suggested ( Mechanistic and Non Mechanistic Science) by Richard L Thompson.
You STILL haven’t shown the mathematical proof that “...It is demonstrated mathematically that is not posibble for systems of lower levels of organization to spontaneously tansform themselves to states of higher organization, without the introduction of additional specific information. ...”
You told me to find the link for it myself over the net -I humoured you by trying and I still cannot find it.
Now it is back to you; I repeat my question; can you give us a link to this “mathematical proof” you claim exists -or are you, as I suspect, making this crap up as you are going along?
And even if such a “mathematical proof” existed, how would this prevent evolution from working when any new mutation that produces a new gene can be described as giving an “ introduction of additional specific information”?
19 Nov 10
1 edit
Organisation of simple structures to more complex structures with well defined patterns happen all the time (e.g. snowflakes).
Also bubbles form into specific shapes (small ones form a sphere, larger ones tend to be unstable and burst) from simple physical laws.
On a molecular level, there are arrangements made consistently. All it takes is a particular arrangement that replicates and you have the basic building blocks of structures which can "improve", as less stable ones destroy itself.