Re: Random Is An Illusion

On Dec 1, 5:35 pm, Primary AL <aavery6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The REAL problem the scientists and bitter authors have, while they
subjectively build their case (not necessary--we get it) is that the
flailing sputtering colliding matter that they study IS MADE UP IF
HIGHLY ORGANIZED AND INFINITELY COMPLEX ATOMIC AND SUB ATOMIC
STRUCTURE replete with highly developed immutable design INTENTIONS
FOR THE FUTURE, called by Steven Hawking "the Immutable laws of the
Universe."

looks like a nando wannabe...talking about 'intentions' for the
future...whatever the hell those are.


There was never any chaos. no more than one might presume while
observing a slow motion search engine. It is simply a plethora of
processes, mostly unrecognizable by us as methodological in nature due
to our limited capacity.

like up 2 samples of radioactive atoms, each with 100 atoms.

tell me which atoms are gonna decay first. if there's no randomness,
that's an easy test for your position. the sample sizes are small...

If there is an argument, here about irreducibility, it should cease.
When will it become obvious that ist is a futile argument for both
sides, not because of stubbornness but because of the nature of the
universe. Quantum Science shows a glaring pattern, no Evo origin
theororist wants look at squarely.

?? uh...you haven't even made the first step towards eliminating the
concept of 'random' processes. go back to square 1.


Scientists now attract billions for research with no discernible
humane benefit to continue to split particles of reality, now only
theoretical, building machines and laboratories around entire cities,
the homeless and uneducated and sick be damned!!!

ah, the argument of the luddite....burn the museums....torch the books
of poetry...ban science...only religion is useful!!


And when it comes to "big,' why, Why, do the scientists have such a
small imagination so as to lock-step- proclaim the FACT that all of
infinite space and time has only produced "A" (one) big bang?

well...believe it or not, it's the only one we can SEE...seems like a
pretty good reason to me.


Why? Because even the hint that there is no real beginning,\\

you hook your ridiculous argument on the idea that there are no random
processes...when there are.

you say there is no beginning to the universe.

there was.

so you're 0 for 2. care for another meaningless assertion?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Scientists Find Heaviest Atomic Element - EVER
    ... Scientists in California and Russia announced Monday that they have ... exist in nature but have been synthesized by slamming smaller atoms ... together - the three atoms of ununoctium created in the latest ... California at Berkeley, tossing out the example of plutonium-239, the ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • A real answer
    ... can have any real affect on what the real problem is, imo, the energy policy ... He says we aren't getting feedback from the ... scientists. ... and that the so-called public broadcasting couldn't be ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Reading Dawkins ... was "Scrump"
    ... that on the one hand is committed to science and logic to ... What scientists do in their spare time is ... doesn't even meet Popper's concept of falsifiability. ... I'd say atoms were on a less solid basis in the 19th century than ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Bad Science 2: "Anthropomorphism Rules OK."
    ... You may be touching on a real problem, but I don't think you are ... scientists who now think they own the terms. ... Do something today about the Darfur Genocide ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT Big Bang or Big Bounce?
    ... Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth ... When scientists first hypothesized atoms centuries ago, they despaired of ever observing anything so small, and many questioned whether the concept of atoms could even be called scientific. ... Well that certainly would save a lot of time and energy devising experiments to prove or disprove the big bounce hypothesis. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)