Debating bodhitharta

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 16 2010,03:59)

Quote (Stu @ July 30 2010,20:48) Quote (Ed J @ July 30 2010,04:40) Hi All, Seems you guys have forgotten this thread is about our misguided fellow Forum poster, Asana bodhitharta. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org The material in the earlier part of the thread contains the primer required before embarking on a dialogue with BD.  He has an international reputation for a lack of integrity in his arguing tactics and the thread catalogues that for the information of those on whom he may try the same disingenuous strategies. Stuart (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Edit)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Hi Stuart, Are one of those strategies to keep starting new THREADS in an attempt to ignore the Points that BD finds distasteful? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org REASON for Edit: Posts should have been Threads!

What points do I find distasteful?

[Stu]

Where to start?

How about this point, recently avoided because it contradicted BD's claim:

Order arises spontaneously from random arrangements of particles…

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,08:59)

Where to start? How about this point, recently avoided because it contradicted BD's claim: Order arises spontaneously from random arrangements of particles… Stuart

So let's not avoid it, how do you suppose it's true? If order arises how can the arrangement be random?

Can you use completely different particles and get the same effect?

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 16 2010,11:27)

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,08:59) Where to start? How about this point, recently avoided because it contradicted BD's claim: Order arises spontaneously from random arrangements of particles… Stuart So let's not avoid it, how do you suppose it's true? If order arises how can the arrangement be random? Can you use completely different particles and get the same effect?

Yes. In fact you can use just about any random mixture of salts in solution and they will be sorted by their solubility into different crystals, each of which is perfectly ordered.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,11:49)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 16 2010,11:27) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,08:59) Where to start? How about this point, recently avoided because it contradicted BD's claim: Order arises spontaneously from random arrangements of particles… Stuart So let's not avoid it, how do you suppose it's true? If order arises how can the arrangement be random? Can you use completely different particles and get the same effect? Yes.  In fact you can use just about any random mixture of salts in solution and they will be sorted by their solubility into different crystals, each of which is perfectly ordered. Stuart

I said any random mixture including non-salts but I will tell you this you have shown that it is not random as their is the priciple of Solubility and as you said that is perfectly ORDERED

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 17 2010,03:03)

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,11:49) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 16 2010,11:27) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,08:59) Where to start? How about this point, recently avoided because it contradicted BD's claim: Order arises spontaneously from random arrangements of particles… Stuart So let's not avoid it, how do you suppose it's true? If order arises how can the arrangement be random? Can you use completely different particles and get the same effect? Yes.  In fact you can use just about any random mixture of salts in solution and they will be sorted by their solubility into different crystals, each of which is perfectly ordered. Stuart I said any random mixture including non-salts but I will tell you this you have shown that it is not random as their is the priciple of Solubility and as you said that is perfectly ORDERED

You can stir sugar in there and it will do the same thing. You can choose any amount of any substance, or leave it to a random number generator to decide, and you will get the same outcome. Are you trying to argue that solutions are not random arrangements compared to crystals? That would be wrong. The particles are mixed randomly in the solution and separated out into ordered, pure crystals after evaporation.

The “principle” is just our description of how matter behaves. Getting back to the original point this principle applies without discrimination no matter where you are or how impoverished or prayerful you might be. There is no intelligence evident in crystallisation.

The “law” in this case is just a description of the relative attractions between ions and water molecules and ions and other ions. That directly relates to the numbers of protons and the arrangements of electrons present in those particles and the distances involved, which in turn are consequences of having elements with all possible numbers of protons up to 92.

There's no discrimination anywhere, no guiding of anything beyond the indiscriminate application of the inverse square relationship between distance and electrostatic force, which itself really derives from simple geometry.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 17 2010,11:20)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 17 2010,03:03) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,11:49) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 16 2010,11:27) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,08:59) Where to start? How about this point, recently avoided because it contradicted BD's claim: Order arises spontaneously from random arrangements of particles… Stuart So let's not avoid it, how do you suppose it's true? If order arises how can the arrangement be random? Can you use completely different particles and get the same effect? Yes.  In fact you can use just about any random mixture of salts in solution and they will be sorted by their solubility into different crystals, each of which is perfectly ordered. Stuart I said any random mixture including non-salts but I will tell you this you have shown that it is not random as their is the priciple of Solubility and as you said that is perfectly ORDERED You can stir sugar in there and it will do the same thing.  You can choose any amount of any substance, or leave it to a random number generator to decide, and you will get the same outcome.  Are you trying to argue that solutions are not random arrangements compared to crystals?  That would be wrong.  The particles are mixed randomly in the solution and separated out into ordered, pure crystals after evaporation. The “principle” is just our description of how matter behaves.  Getting back to the original point this principle applies without discrimination no matter where you are or how impoverished or prayerful you might be.  There is no intelligence evident in crystallisation.   The “law” in this case is just a description of the relative attractions between ions and water molecules and ions and other ions.  That directly relates to the numbers of protons and the arrangements of electrons present in those particles and the distances involved, which in turn are consequences of having elements with all possible numbers of protons up to 92.   There's no discrimination anywhere, no guiding of anything beyond the indiscriminate application of the inverse square relationship between distance and electrostatic force, which itself really derives from simple geometry. Stuart

Simple geometry is a reality based on laws. Why do you keep talking about discrimination and prayers?

Even answered prayers work along the same lines of probability and outcome as sure as those crystals that is why the scriptures say:

James 5:16 (King James Version)
16Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain
Editor's PicksThe New Unger's Bible Handbook$39.99$26.99You Save $13 (33%)KJV Complete Bible on DVD$29.95$11.99You Save $17.96 (60%)From Paradise to the Promised Land, 2d ed.: An Introduction to the Pentateuch$28.99$20.99You Save $8 (28%)KJV/Amplified Parallel Bible, Bonded leather, black$64.99$48.99You Save $16 (25%)The New Moody Atlas of the Bible$49.99$34.99You Save $15 (30%)See more books at the Bible Gateway store

?

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 17 2010,13:37)

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 17 2010,11:20) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 17 2010,03:03) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,11:49) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 16 2010,11:27) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,08:59) Where to start? How about this point, recently avoided because it contradicted BD's claim: Order arises spontaneously from random arrangements of particles… Stuart So let's not avoid it, how do you suppose it's true? If order arises how can the arrangement be random? Can you use completely different particles and get the same effect? Yes.  In fact you can use just about any random mixture of salts in solution and they will be sorted by their solubility into different crystals, each of which is perfectly ordered. Stuart I said any random mixture including non-salts but I will tell you this you have shown that it is not random as their is the priciple of Solubility and as you said that is perfectly ORDERED You can stir sugar in there and it will do the same thing.  You can choose any amount of any substance, or leave it to a random number generator to decide, and you will get the same outcome.  Are you trying to argue that solutions are not random arrangements compared to crystals?  That would be wrong.  The particles are mixed randomly in the solution and separated out into ordered, pure crystals after evaporation. The “principle” is just our description of how matter behaves.  Getting back to the original point this principle applies without discrimination no matter where you are or how impoverished or prayerful you might be.  There is no intelligence evident in crystallisation.   The “law” in this case is just a description of the relative attractions between ions and water molecules and ions and other ions.  That directly relates to the numbers of protons and the arrangements of electrons present in those particles and the distances involved, which in turn are consequences of having elements with all possible numbers of protons up to 92.   There's no discrimination anywhere, no guiding of anything beyond the indiscriminate application of the inverse square relationship between distance and electrostatic force, which itself really derives from simple geometry. Stuart Simple geometry is a reality based on laws. Why do you keep talking about discrimination and prayers? Even answered prayers work along the same lines of probability and outcome as sure as those crystals that is why the scriptures say: James 5:16 (King James Version) 16Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. King James Version (KJV) Public Domain Editor's PicksThe New Unger's Bible Handbook$39.99$26.99You Save $13 (33%)KJV Complete Bible on DVD$29.95$11.99You Save $17.96 (60%)From Paradise to the Promised Land, 2d ed.: An Introduction to the Pentateuch$28.99$20.99You Save $8 (28%)KJV/Amplified Parallel Bible, Bonded leather, black$64.99$48.99You Save $16 (25%)The New Moody Atlas of the Bible$49.99$34.99You Save $15 (30%)See more books at the Bible Gateway store ?

I'll leave you to have a think and catch up.

Those are great deals on christian books, are you selling them?

I'm not in the market for one, as it happens.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

nothing to think about you were incorrect crystals do not form randomly they form under certain conditions.

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 18 2010,19:00)

nothing to think about you were incorrect crystals do not form randomly they form under certain conditions.

I did not say that crystals form randomly. It is pretty clear that you are out of your depth here. You are trying to mount some kind of hybrid intelligence / thermodynamics argument, but it is incoherent.

Crystals form under conditions of evaporating and/or cooling of a solution or melt. Both evaporation and cooling are spontaneous processes, involving as they do the spontaneous spreading out of the matter of the solvent and of the heat energy.

And yet, as a result of spreading energy and dispersing solvent in which there is a random arrangement of ions and molecules, you are left with highly ordered and differentiated (sorted) crystals that spontaneously form.

The thermodynamics of that is the same as that for the spontaneous ordering of life. The Laws of Thermodynamics (which, I hasten to add show no evidence of a discriminating “lawgiver”, whatever that is) just say that disorder increases because statistically particles arrange themselves in random patterns and there are more ways of being disordered than ordered, BUT there is nothing stopping a high degree of local ordering so long as it is “paid for” by increased disorder elsewhere.

The sun generates more than enough such entropy, as it is called, to allow our bodies to maintain the ordering of particles and their organisation in cells against the natural tendency to disorder. The same is true with crystals, and any locally ordered system.

OK?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 18 2010,19:56)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 18 2010,19:00) nothing to think about you were incorrect crystals do not form randomly they form under certain conditions. I did not say that crystals form randomly.  It is pretty clear that you are out of your depth here.  You are trying to mount some kind of hybrid intelligence / thermodynamics argument, but it is incoherent. Crystals form under conditions of evaporating and/or cooling of a solution or melt.  Both evaporation and cooling are spontaneous processes, involving as they do the spontaneous spreading out of the matter of the solvent and of the heat energy. And yet, as a result of spreading energy and dispersing solvent in which there is a random arrangement of ions and molecules, you are left with highly ordered and differentiated (sorted) crystals that spontaneously form. The thermodynamics of that is the same as that for the spontaneous ordering of life.  The Laws of Thermodynamics (which, I hasten to add show no evidence of a discriminating “lawgiver”, whatever that is) just say that disorder increases because statistically particles arrange themselves in random patterns and there are more ways of being disordered than ordered, BUT there is nothing stopping a high degree of local ordering so long as it is “paid for” by increased disorder elsewhere.   The sun generates more than enough such entropy, as it is called, to allow our bodies to maintain the ordering of particles and their organisation in cells against the natural tendency to disorder.  The same is true with crystals, and any locally ordered system. OK? Stuart

STU,

Please stop it…lol. The Laws of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with disorder that is something that has been misinterpreted as it is completely in error and no actual scientist will say such a thing.

This misleading idea has dominated too long and is purely mystical, the Law of Entropy is simply the principle of energy dispersion it is not some sort of spooky “disorder or chaos” it is very simple to understand

look at what kind of garbage is said because of the false idea of what entropy means:
—————————————–
Entropy and Disorder
If you assert that nature tends to take things from order to disorder and give an example or two, then you will get almost universal recognition and assent. It is a part of our common experience. Spend hours cleaning your desk, your basement, your attic, and it seems to spontaneously revert back to disorder and chaos before your eyes.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html
—————————————————–

You see how silly and damaging misusing terms can be?

now back to reality: Evaporation and cooling are not spontaneous processes and evaporation is crucial to the water cycle it is not random. Now pay attention since I know you love science let me teach some to you.

Do molecules of a liquid evaporate from anywhere but the surface? NO, these molecules must be near the surface and moving in the proper direction and as you may or may not know the rate of evaporation is limited depending on the circumstance such as heat or humidity and in-fact even air movement effects evaporation and cooling.

What's funny is that your understanding of thermodynamics is more theological than scientific lose the order/disorder it has nothing to do with entropy otherwise things would be much more disorderly in the winter than the summer…lol

[Stu]

BD wrote:

Quote

Please stop it…lol. The Laws of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with disorder that is something that has been misinterpreted as it is completely in error and no actual scientist will say such a thing. This misleading idea has dominated too long and is purely mystical, the Law of Entropy is simply the principle of energy dispersion it is not some sort of spooky “disorder or chaos” it is very simple to understand

Stu wrote:

Quote

Both evaporation and cooling are spontaneous processes, involving as they do the spontaneous spreading out of the matter of the solvent and of the heat energy.

You say yourself that energy spontaneously spreads out.

The diagram on the page you linked to shows that matter does the same thing.

I did not say that the laws of thermodynamics were all about order and chaos, I was very careful to explain it with a statistical thermodynamic description, just like the picture does. It is not true that entropy has nothing to do with disorder.

Perhaps if you read the Holy Wikipedia on the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Evaporation and cooling ARE spontaneous processes according to what you posted. You can change the rate of evaporation but frozen clothes will dry on a clothesline in sub-zero Antarctic temperatures by the continuing, if slow, spontaneous dispersal of matter through evaporation. That process only stops at absolute zero, but of course being an expert you will be able to tell me what the entropy of crystalline ice is at that temperature.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 19 2010,16:25)

BD wrote: Quote Please stop it…lol. The Laws of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with disorder that is something that has been misinterpreted as it is completely in error and no actual scientist will say such a thing. This misleading idea has dominated too long and is purely mystical, the Law of Entropy is simply the principle of energy dispersion it is not some sort of spooky “disorder or chaos” it is very simple to understand Stu wrote: Quote Both evaporation and cooling are spontaneous processes, involving as they do the spontaneous spreading out of the matter of the solvent and of the heat energy. You say yourself that energy spontaneously spreads out. The diagram on the page you linked to shows that matter does the same thing.   I did not say that the laws of thermodynamics were all about order and chaos, I was very careful to explain it with a statistical thermodynamic description, just like the picture does.  It is not true that entropy has nothing to do with disorder. Perhaps if you read the Holy Wikipedia on the Second Law of Thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics Evaporation and cooling ARE spontaneous processes according to what you posted.  You can change the rate of evaporation but frozen clothes will dry on a clothesline in sub-zero Antarctic temperatures by the continuing, if slow, spontaneous dispersal of matter through evaporation.  That process only stops at absolute zero, but of course being an expert you will be able to tell me what the entropy of crystalline ice is at that temperature. Stuart

The diagram is inadequate as times arrow is not the same as entropy and confuses the issue obviously I could heat up water or let it cool and cold water is not more disorderly than hot “order” is simply a byproduct of conscious design if there is no consciousness order would not matter

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 19 2010,20:03)

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 19 2010,16:25) BD wrote: Quote Please stop it…lol. The Laws of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with disorder that is something that has been misinterpreted as it is completely in error and no actual scientist will say such a thing. This misleading idea has dominated too long and is purely mystical, the Law of Entropy is simply the principle of energy dispersion it is not some sort of spooky “disorder or chaos” it is very simple to understand Stu wrote: Quote Both evaporation and cooling are spontaneous processes, involving as they do the spontaneous spreading out of the matter of the solvent and of the heat energy. You say yourself that energy spontaneously spreads out. The diagram on the page you linked to shows that matter does the same thing.   I did not say that the laws of thermodynamics were all about order and chaos, I was very careful to explain it with a statistical thermodynamic description, just like the picture does.  It is not true that entropy has nothing to do with disorder. Perhaps if you read the Holy Wikipedia on the Second Law of Thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics Evaporation and cooling ARE spontaneous processes according to what you posted.  You can change the rate of evaporation but frozen clothes will dry on a clothesline in sub-zero Antarctic temperatures by the continuing, if slow, spontaneous dispersal of matter through evaporation.  That process only stops at absolute zero, but of course being an expert you will be able to tell me what the entropy of crystalline ice is at that temperature. Stuart The diagram is inadequate as times arrow is not the same as entropy and confuses the issue obviously I could heat up water or let it cool and cold water is not more disorderly than hot “order” is simply a byproduct of conscious design if there is no consciousness order would not matter

I can see you have fallen into a terminal spiral of nonsense here so I shall give you time to recover.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 19 2010,21:13)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 19 2010,20:03) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 19 2010,16:25) BD wrote: Quote Please stop it…lol. The Laws of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with disorder that is something that has been misinterpreted as it is completely in error and no actual scientist will say such a thing. This misleading idea has dominated too long and is purely mystical, the Law of Entropy is simply the principle of energy dispersion it is not some sort of spooky “disorder or chaos” it is very simple to understand Stu wrote: Quote Both evaporation and cooling are spontaneous processes, involving as they do the spontaneous spreading out of the matter of the solvent and of the heat energy. You say yourself that energy spontaneously spreads out. The diagram on the page you linked to shows that matter does the same thing.   I did not say that the laws of thermodynamics were all about order and chaos, I was very careful to explain it with a statistical thermodynamic description, just like the picture does.  It is not true that entropy has nothing to do with disorder. Perhaps if you read the Holy Wikipedia on the Second Law of Thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics Evaporation and cooling ARE spontaneous processes according to what you posted.  You can change the rate of evaporation but frozen clothes will dry on a clothesline in sub-zero Antarctic temperatures by the continuing, if slow, spontaneous dispersal of matter through evaporation.  That process only stops at absolute zero, but of course being an expert you will be able to tell me what the entropy of crystalline ice is at that temperature. Stuart The diagram is inadequate as times arrow is not the same as entropy and confuses the issue obviously I could heat up water or let it cool and cold water is not more disorderly than hot “order” is simply a byproduct of conscious design if there is no consciousness order would not matter I can see you have fallen into a terminal spiral of nonsense here so I shall give you time to recover. Stuart

You don't understand what I am saying do you? It's okay.

whatever you seem to think is random in nature is not actually random there is a cause for its occurence and only conscious randomness can exist anyway.

Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective can only be relative to Conscious observation and or experience.

For instance a random number generator operates on nonrandom principles or Math formuli

[Stu]

You appear still not to have recovered from posting nonsense.

Order spontaneously arises in crystals when you leave solutions to evaporate. I think you would agree that monkeys typing on keys would give you something you could reasonably say was random. Instead encourage the monkeys to spill various solutions into one pot to randomise the chemical mixture. Would you be claiming that now the monkeys are injecting some kind of conscious patterns into that mixture? Bollocks they are. If you want to call it relatively disordered rather than random that is fine, the point remains.

Let that random /disordered mixture evaporate. You get very highly ordered crystals forming spontaneously, with separation of the components of that mixture.

If that process is controlled by any consciousness then I would suggest you have no way of defining what this is: it is just another way of stating that a god did everything and there would be nothing without a god. That statement means you cannot know what gods do not do, and therefore there is no distinction between “gods” and “no gods”.

Order arises spontaneously in nature. Is that a fact that your ego cannot stand?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 20 2010,19:57)

You appear still not to have recovered from posting nonsense.   Order spontaneously arises in crystals when you leave solutions to evaporate.  I think you would agree that monkeys typing on keys would give you something you could reasonably say was random.  Instead encourage the monkeys to spill various solutions into one pot to randomise the chemical mixture.  Would you be claiming that now the monkeys are injecting some kind of conscious patterns into that mixture?  Bollocks they are.  If you want to call it relatively disordered rather than random that is fine, the point remains. Let that random /disordered mixture evaporate.  You get very highly ordered crystals forming spontaneously, with separation of the components of that mixture. If that process is controlled by any consciousness then I would suggest you have no way of defining what this is: it is just another way of stating that a god did everything and there would be nothing without a god.  That statement means you cannot know what gods do not do, and therefore there is no distinction between “gods” and “no gods”. Order arises spontaneously in nature.  Is that a fact that your ego cannot stand? Stuart

Order arises spontaneously in nature according to nonrandom laws of nature.

The fact is these things are not random even your belief in evolution disqualifies random activity and that is why Bodhitharta's Law states there are no Synchronistic Random Mutations in nature.

This also proves that evolution as it is taught is incorrect while Kinds evolve within a sprecies boundary they do not leave that ring because sterility occurs at the boundary of the ring. So Creation allows for evolution of Kinds but each Kind according to its own Kind.

The origin of Sex proves this absolutely because for sex to occur both gender roles have to be fully intact a the time of the occurence for conception to occur. If there is a single gender too immature to procreate while the other is too mature nothing will happen, consider a very old female not producing any eggs and a very young male not reproducing viable sperm the result would be Null.

so we are not talking so much about spontaneity as we are talking about randomness not occuring in the crystals or evolution

[Stu]

So, once again you change your statement because your previous one is shown to be wrong. You have changed to a correct statement, but one that no longer supports your original premise, because it shows that the characteristics of intelligence such as the ability to discriminate between different situations, are missing in the way this principle works in practice. Indeed the “laws” (a fancy way of describing what space-time does spontaneously) are not random, they are uniform. There is no particular evidence of design or intent in any of them, they do not show any preferences.

And now you scurry off to new and irrelevant questions about biology. Not even 007 deploys his smokescreen as often as you do.

You are simply wrong about evolution. It is as good as a certainty that we evolved from shrew-like animals that survived the extinction event that accounted for the dinosaurs. Only people with religious agendas are in denial about that fact. The existence of ring species also utterly disproves this nonsense.

Your version of the evolution of sex is a schoolboy error. It does not require any more answering than pointing out the existence of self-fertilisation in the plant kingdom, the existence of hermaphroditic species such as snails, and the fact that bacteria exchange genetic material without any of the usual characteristics of sexual reproduction as we observe it.

To get from genetic swapping in bacteria to hermaphrodism to separate genders, all you need is increasing specialisation. There were never human ancestors who did not reproduce sexually, it was an entirely different and very much earlier ancestor that invented and passed on this means of increasing variation in the population.

I don't really think you know what you are talking about BD. You are barely able to keep to the same topic for more than a couple of posts before you divert attention away from your previous gaffes by going off on a new tangent.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 21 2010,18:51)

Quote

So, once again you change your statement because your previous one is shown to be wrong. You have changed to a correct statement, but one that no longer supports your original premise, because it shows that the characteristics of intelligence such

Actually I haven't changed a thing you simply understand my statement more clearly and if you do then you would know that your original statement is wrong about Crystals because they function according to Natural Law which is nonrandom

Quote

as the ability to discriminate between different situations, are missing in the way this principle works in practice.

You mean the same way other laws function indiscriminately?

Quote

Indeed the “laws” (a fancy way of describing what space-time does spontaneously) are not random, they are uniform.

Wrong use of the word spontaneous as there would not even be a way to know if time was spontaneous because it has never been shown to be self-generating but if you believe in the Big Bang then you would have to conclude that space-time is not spontaneous as it did not arise without external influence i.e. force

Quote

There is no particular evidence of design or intent in any of them, they do not show any preferences.

your statement is illogical because to create a law or to observe one requires the understanding that for all practical reasons the intent and preference of a thing being in enacted upon by law is indiscriminate and that is preferable i.e. 2+2, water cycles, gravity, osmosis, DNA…etc being unpredictable would be impractical

Quote

And now you scurry off to new and irrelevant questions about biology. Not even 007 deploys his smokescreen as often as you do.

Hardly irrelevent but I must remember that expanding too fast can cause confusion for others

Quote

You are simply wrong about evolution. It is as good as a certainty that we evolved from shrew-like animals that survived the extinction event that accounted for the dinosaurs.

Believe me if I were wrong about evolution I wouldn't have a problem with it as it doesn't cause an issue about whether God exists or not, but the fact is from my actual study of this matter the way that evolution is taught it simply is incorrect.

Quote

Only people with religious agendas are in denial about that fact. The existence of ring species also utterly disproves this nonsense.

The existence of ring species utterly disproves evolution the way it is taught things do not evolve beyond the point of that kind of specie. Wolves can be cultivated to be dogs but they are both kinds of canines and they will never evolve out of that “Kind”

Quote

Your version of the evolution of sex is a schoolboy error. It does not require any more answering than pointing out the existence of self-fertilisation in the plant kingdom, the existence of hermaphroditic species such as snails, and the fact that bacteria exchange genetic material without any of the usual characteristics of sexual reproduction as we observe it.

Once again I will slow down so you can understand me better.

Sexual reproduction requires “SEX” which requires two components mature enough to mate at the same time. I am saying that the First sexual act could not have been random because mutations occuring randomly would not ever allow for sexual reproduction to occur. Lets look at animals or humans for a moment if you had a mate that you wanted to reproduce with you would have to have everything necessary to be a male and she would have to have everything necessary to be a female this is a biological fact: No uterus no offspring, No eggs no offspring, no sperm no offspring, no penis or no vagina and guess what no offspring and on and on

Quote

To get from genetic swapping in bacteria to hermaphrodism to separate genders, all you need is increasing specialisation. There were never human ancestors who did not reproduce sexually, it was an entirely different and very much earlier ancestor that invented and passed on this means of increasing variation in the population.

Increasing specialization does not allow for increasing variation it decreases variation in populations hence the danger of incestual reproduction most hermaphrodites are sterile but you were right there never were human ancestors that did not reproduce sexually because humans were created and have not evolved much after their creation
evolution is more superficial then physical in general because of the input of the environment and the selection of mating changes such as being smaller or larger or having various color eyes or hair.

Quote

I don't really think you know what you are talking about BD. You are barely able to keep to the same topic for more than a couple of posts before you divert attention away from your previous gaffes by going off on a new tangent.

I believe such things are interelated and so do you and that's why you accept both Crystals and Humans as random spontaneous happenings and I don't

It's funny because you are arguing a typical “creationists” argument and I am arguing from a scientific viewpoint and that's because I am a creationist that understands that God created laws and principles that Govern the Universe. Think about a computer do you think that everytime we want to use a computer we should write a fresh application everyday according to the situation or should we create applications for a computer that doesn't care who uses them and functions for everyone alike

[Stu]

BD

Quote

Actually I haven't changed a thing you simply understand my statement more clearly and if you do then you would know that your original statement is wrong about Crystals because they function according to Natural Law which is nonrandom

My statement about crystals is right. I have grown crystals myself in this way. You have changed from saying that the solution is not random to some fatuous nonsense about the laws being non-random. So what?

Quote

Wrong use of the word spontaneous as there would not even be a way to know if time was spontaneous because it has never been shown to be self-generating but if you believe in the Big Bang then you would have to conclude that space-time is not spontaneous as it did not arise without external influence i.e. force

No, in that case you would have to conclude that the Big Bang WAS spontaneous, which actually is what it appears to be, and is what Hawking is saying it appears to him to be too.

Quote

your statement is illogical because to create a law or to observe one requires the understanding that for all practical reasons the intent and preference of a thing being in enacted upon by law is indiscriminate and that is preferable i.e. 2+2, water cycles, gravity, osmosis, DNA…etc being unpredictable would be impractical

At least my statement actually followed the rules of grammar and parsed sensibly in English. This sentence is nonsense. What are you on about? Do you know?

Quote

Believe me if I were wrong about evolution I wouldn't have a problem with it as it doesn't cause an issue about whether God exists or not, but the fact is from my actual study of this matter the way that evolution is taught it simply is incorrect.

Well perhaps you need to change the way you study it then, or perhaps you are right and there are idiots teaching wrong science.

Quote

The existence of ring species utterly disproves evolution the way it is taught things do not evolve beyond the point of that kind of specie. Wolves can be cultivated to be dogs but they are both kinds of canines and they will never evolve out of that “Kind”

That is the bit you have wrong. If it is a fact that life begets life It is a fact that we result from a long line of human ancestors. If that is actually wrong then there will be very little you can rely on in history at all. We know that we came from shrew-like animals as well as we know there was a desert-dwelling prophet called mohammad; the two would be known to a similar level of confidence. Of course the whole Gabriel talking thing is not established as any kind of fact. Do you know what a ring species is BD?

Quote

Sexual reproduction requires “SEX” which requires two components mature enough to mate at the same time. I am saying that the First sexual act could not have been random because mutations occuring randomly would not ever allow for sexual reproduction to occur. Lets look at animals or humans for a moment if you had a mate that you wanted to reproduce with you would have to have everything necessary to be a male and she would have to have everything necessary to be a female this is a biological fact: No uterus no offspring, No eggs no offspring, no sperm no offspring, no penis or no vagina and guess what no offspring and on and on

Been through this already with you. Get back to us when you can recall the point I made to you about it last time. Do you remember what I wrote then?

Quote

Increasing specialization does not allow for increasing variation it decreases variation in populations hence the danger of incestual reproduction most hermaphrodites are sterile but you were right there never were human ancestors that did not reproduce sexually because humans were created and have not evolved much after their creation

Actually the whole point of specialising as male and female is to increase variation in the population by use of sexual recombination. Genes are shuffled and the new previously untried ways of combining genes add to the variation in the population. Most hermaphroditic animals are not sterile, where did you get that idea? As I have indicated already, if you believe Mo existed then you should believe your very distant ancestors were rodents. The evidence for each is about as strong.

Quote

evolution is more superficial then physical in general because of the input of the environment and the selection of mating changes such as being smaller or larger or having various color eyes or hair.

Evolution is the outcome of 4 billion years of fundamental change in species as they have diverged from a common ancestor. You and I carry multiple lines of evidence of that in every cell in our bodies. Why do you feel you need to be dishonest about this fact BD? I’ve always been awed by the fact that I share ancestry with every plant and animal that has DNA (and none don’t!).

Quote

I believe such things are interelated and so do you and that's why you accept both Crystals and Humans as random spontaneous happenings and I don't

I don’t think humans are random spontaneous happenings. We are the products of the very exacting process of natural selection. The evidence of that fact too is written throughout our bodies.

Quote

It's funny because you are arguing a typical “creationists” argument and I am arguing from a scientific viewpoint and that's because I am a creationist that understands that God created laws and principles that Govern the Universe. Think about a computer do you think that everytime we want to use a computer we should write a fresh application everyday according to the situation or should we create applications for a computer that doesn't care who uses them and functions for everyone alike

What creationist argument have I used? What falsifiable, evidence-based science are you using? What has any science ever said about gods at all? Are you saying that common design means the same job will be done in the same way in different animals? Are
you actually making a creationist prediction here?

Stuart

[Author]

Posts