All quotes by Franko
Like I said, evidence which isn’t logical, isn’t evidence.
And like I said, evidence is not logical or illogical. It is just observations. Here's an example:
As a genetecist, you observe that humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical DNA.
That is the evidence. It involves no logic. The logic comes in when you try to fit the evidence to your hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: The DNA is similar because God used a lot of the same parts during the seven days of creation.
Hypothesis 2: The DNA is similar because the humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor.
Both hypotheses use exactly the same evidence. How do we decide which is better? That is where you use logic to see how this hypothesis fits into the
other things hypothesized by the belief system.
Tricky do you have any idea what you are even talking about; or are you just parroting that imbecile Pixy because you think She is smarter than You?
Although I am not as knowledgable about many things as Misa, especially particle physics (or even physics in general), I believe I can hold my own in a conversation with you.
Do you know what the main difference is between normal matter (“posi-matter”) and anti-matter? What is the difference between a posi-matter electron, and an anti-matter electron? Because, you see, you can’t talk about matter without also talking about gravity by default, just like you can’t talk about gravity without making reference to matter. The two are inexorably linked.
Gravity is one property of matter, however it is relatively easy to talk about other properties of matter without mentioning gravity, for example the property of matter that it occupies space. See? easily done.
If you're talking about positrons versus electrons, yes I knew what they are even before Misa explained them. If you are talking about something different, well then I really can't say. I have never come across the term "posi-matter electron" in any physics or chemistry course I have taken. Perhaps you could provide a reference. Or perhaps you merely made up the term.
Posi-matter Gravitons have a positive charge, and Anti-matter Gravitons have a negative charge. That’s what LD claims. I could care less whether You believe it or not.
Well then let's test it. Charged particles are deflected by electromagnetic fields. If gravitons, the hypothetical source of gravity, are charged, then gravity would be noticibly warped in the presence of a strong electromagnetic field. This would be a very easy experiment to test, in fact all you have to do is see if there are gravity anomalies around radio transmitters. Care to check this out? I'm betting there aren't.
If you can’t explain what happened before the “big bang”, and I can, then how does that make your religion “better”?
Because my beliefs (which aren't a religion) do not invent and claim the truth of explanations without evidence. And what happened to "I don't know"? You used to be so humble.
When you are claiming that an entire Universe appeared out of no where, and then it escaped a “singularity” (which no one has ever actually seen, and from which nothing is suppose to be able to escape – NOTHING!), and you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for this claim (other than your “good word”), but I should believe You, because your religion is more special because You like to pretend that it isn’t really a religion … then I would say you have a Magical belief system regardless of what you want to call it or pretend it IS or IS NOT.
You'll be hard pressed to prove I have claimed any such thing. In truth, I have said very little about the scientific theories on the origin of the universe because I am not well educated in that field. If is another one where I say "I don't know" a lot. And I have already accepted the fact that you will call it "magic" and you will call my beliefs "religion". You may confuse the hell out of everyone else, but I am becoming familiar with your non-standard definitions.
Magic = Incomprehensible = That which cannot be logically explained = Supernatural = beyond natural explanation = illogical = random = being both True and False or neither True and False simultaneously
Magic is not incomprehensible, it simply isn't real, IMO. My wife claims to be able to do magic, and yes it's quite easy to comprehend, provided you accept the the assumption that it is possible to violate the laws of science. I do not accept this assumption, but if one does, the logic of magic is unassailable. Yet another case where logic is not evidence.
It is almost like you are refuting your own post.
Because I am adjusting for your odd definitions? Come on, Frank, I'm doing it for you so we won't have to argue semantics over and over again. I really do wish you would publish
The Lexicon here so I wouldn't have to always guess what you mean by certain words.
Godel + Bayes = Evolution (Darwin) … just like 2 + 2 = 4.
Well then why do you insist on a model of the universe that posits decreasing complexity? You don't like Darwin either?
Godel essentially says it all, things (systems) go from simple to complex over time, but how does that contradict LD?
Because one of the things you have said time and time again is that things can only arise from things more complex than themselves. In fact I belive you have derided me a number of times for suggesting otherwise. You want me to post links? They are numerous. Or are you now arguing that toasters are more complex than humans?
You have a kid, initially as an infant that child is virtually helpless – he or she has no comprehension of this reality, they are totally unable to navigate here independently. … Okay, so lets say 20 years or so go by, and now look at that “infant”. Now they are an adult, their mind has “evolved”, it has gone from less complex as an infant, to more complex as an adult. But that doesn’t mean that YOU as that person’s parent haven’t also gotten more complex over the last 20 years.
Possibly. Or you might be dead (considerably less complex).
It is nice to see, though, that you have adopted my "infant growing up" example. I guess this also means that you now accept the evidence that matter creates consciousness (infant adds matter to its neurological system which in turn makes the child more conscious). This truly is a day to remember when you have made such major concessions about your old ways of looking at things. I'm proud of you, lad!
I don’t know? I suggest you find the guy most responsible for “inventing” the personal computer, and ask him if he envisioned every single thing (every single program) that would ever be written for Personal Computers and every single use personal computers would be put to at the moment he invented it? When Bill Gates started Microsoft all those years back, (I think he was 19 or 20) do you think he imagined the Internet EXACTLY as it is today?
Well if it was all
fated then the man who is more responsible than anyone else for everything ever done on computers, (which is how you have described Gates) should have had enough info to make such predictions. If not, then it is just
possible that things aren't fated. Gosh Franko. Keep going at this rate and you will be an A-Theist before you know it.
The real question is … what is your Destiny? Let’s take You for example, do you perceive yourself still labeled as an “A-Theist” 5 years from now? … how about 10 years from now? Do you think you will still be calling yourself an A-Theist on your deathbed? … Honestly?
Of course, I have never called myself an A-Theist and based on your description, I am not one. According to
The Lexicon I am an agnostic. Nevertheless, I don't envision making major changes in my beliefs, though I won't say it is impossible. Heck, I might have a lobotomy and become a Logical Deist.
