Re: Fear of Falsification: ToE


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1124664389.979310.132200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Bob wrote:
> > On 20 Aug 2005 16:56:57 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >DEADRAT:
> > >
> > >I seem to have missed this. May we have your mathematical formulation
> > >of complexity again?
> > >
> > >RAY:
> > >
> > >I never offered a mathematical formula because CT deals with the
> > >primary method of relaying truth - words, the choice of God, hence the
> > >Bible/written word.
> > >
> > >God chose information/words because numbers are corruptible, as any
> > >educated person knows that stats and equations can be used to "prove"
> > >anything.
> >
> > ?? and words can't?? my wife is a lawyer. trust me, words can be
> > 'made' to prove anything.
>
> My point was that out of the only TWO mediums to choose from, that is
> words or numbers - God chose words.
>

No, no. *You've* chosen to accept the words that have been told to you.

> Words are way less corruptible than numbers and way more accesible to
> EVERYONE.

No, no. Human understanding is corruptible, whether verbal or numerically
based. Words are more accessible to *you* because of your ignorance of
mathematics. Stop projecting to EVERYONE.

>
> Lawyers engage in rhetoric/misuse of logic to secure court victories
> for their clients regardless of the truth, even though the objective
> idealistic goal is the discovery of the truth.
>

So we can add jurisprudence to the fields of your ignorance.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >Numbers are a private knowledge that requires trust of the ordinary man
> > >to take a scientists word on it.

Mathematics is knowledge available to those who would study it. Just
because
you won't, doesn't mean you should project your ignorance to "the ordinary
man."

> >
> > why?
>
> Because the numbers we are talking about is not math 101 but advanced
> areas. It is not a matter of opinion: math is complicated, as is
> witnessed by quantum mechanics and the endless probablistic theories
> that random mutation depends on.

Some math is complicated; some straightforward. Population genetics uses
farily standard probability and statistics. It "seems endless" to you
because
your ignorance is boundless.

>
> Numbers can be used to prove anything, in response,

"Numbers" are, in fact, strictly constrained on what they can prove.
You'd know that if you studied any mathematics. But you haven't.

> most Darwinists
> here are simply denying what is accepted common knowledge = answers of
> sabotage evading the simplest points because it makes their theory look
> more corruptible than CT.

There is no CT.

>
>
> > >Words are a superior public medium available for anyone who can
> read to
> > >confirm.

Words are a better medium for you because you can read them.
Don't project.

> >
> > is that why there are 30,000 christian denominations all saying
> > they're based on the bible? because it's so clear to read?
> >
>
> How many of these denoms agree with the central message of the Bible:
> salvation, Christ, faith, etc.etc. ?

They all claim to. The point is how can they make those claims as
vigorously
as you make yours? After all, you're all reading from the same playbook.
Just those superior words.

>
> Your point is outlandishly misleading.
>
> Science and its members disagree on everything way more than your
> example.

Once again your ignornace is showing. It is the strength of science that
their members disagree. The process of resolving those disagreements
is what makes the areas of eventual agreement so useful.

>
> But none of this is the point:
>
> The point is that CT predicts science, history, archaeology can confirm
> the word of God.

Then it fails spectacularly.

>
> The opposition in this discussion is enraged

Do you notice that you're the only one who's angry? Stop projecting.

> and has not the basic
> honesty to even address the CT I presented, but insults via "asking"
> "where is the CT ?"

If your CT provides no measurable results, then it's not a scientific
theory. If you can't provide the mathematics behind your theory, there's
no way to determine the measurements. Sorry. Them's the rules.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in "CT." Doesn't even mean it's
not true. Just means it's not science.

>
> Anyone can read my posts and confirm, you may not like it, and you may
> disagree, but to say it isn't posted is the behavior of sabotage, the
> actions of fear doing everything possible to not even entertain
> falsification.
>
> Theories are supposed to enthusiastically seek out falsification, like
> Einstein, who recklessly exposed his GTR to risky falsification
> jeopardy.

Yeah. Albert used tensor analysis. Suppose he'd said he had this
great theory that superseded Newton but that he wasn't going to provide
any mathematics because you could prove anything with numbers?

>
> This topic proves you Darwinists are protecting dogma by not saying,
> "Okay Ray, its your ball, 1st and 10 on the 20, employ your theory
> anyway you like and try to falsify our theory"

"Okay Ray, it's your ball, 4th and 90 on your own goal line. You're
down by 48 points, and the clock shows 2 seconds left in the 4th quarter."
That's where you are. Deal with it. (Man. I can't believe I used a sports
metaphor.)

>
> Instead, you assert contrary to what anyone can read for themself, that
> CT is posted.

You ain't got a path if you can't do the math. Sorry.

>
> You Darwinists should be eager to welcome falsification as it is the
> method by which truth is sustained or replaced.
>
> How do I know CT is correct in the context of this topic ?
>
> Answer: By the refusal of Darwinists to give it its day in court, which
> is fear of falsification.

Your "theory," if and when you present one, will stand or fall on the
evidence. The attitudes of others mean nothing.

>
> Darwinists long ago ceased from seeking out risky falsification, but
> have concerted their efforts to explain away falsifying evidence = the
> behavior of defending a sweetheart and not the bold Einsteinian
> approach - true and legitimate scientific zealotry.

So emulate your hero. Show us the math.

Deadrat

>
> Ray Martinez
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: Beyond a speed limit on mutations, species risk extinction
    ... artificial evolution and genetic algorithms, ... science by mathematicians required Popperian falsification to be thrown out ... otherwise non falsifiable models of mathematics cannot contest/replace their ... Total Darwinian Fitness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Evolution is NOT random
    ... science but cannot constitute a theory of science in its own right. ... is because everything within mathematics remains reversible across the ... relevant experiments are wrong, that's falsification. ... random process as causative to a random pattern. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Physical Meaning of by Symbiogenesis?
    ... any regard to selection represents a futile exercise in mathematics. ... As stated by them, it is a tautology. ... tautologies because they don't know what fitness is. ... mostly by confusing a falsification with a non verification (as you ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Is the question answered?
    ... How can the nature of a number in mathematics be analagous to anything? ... instruments are precise enough, the "random" element disappears. ... falsification yourself! ... At that point, evolution will be falsifiable. ...
    (talk.origins)