₦airaland Forum

menesheh:
Still believe in magic?

"Yes I do" - Coldplay


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtb11P1FWnc

It's the opposite... from huge landlines to small sages to ultrathin smartphones...

Joshthefirst:
To the bolded, Reactions, occurring in definite systems, and yielding directed results, are systematic and predictable. That is my point. And I say that is the bedrock of the scientific method. If nature were unpredictable and random, and pregnant with an infinite subset of possibilities, how could we conduct definite research? and how would our research prove systematic and stable physical systems? How are there definite laws guiding systems in a random nature then? and how can we say a random universe such as ours can evolve stable organisms and cycles that are sustainable in definite environments?

I have not postulated nature as unpredictable,and random(in the context you're using this time) again begs the question of what you consider purposeful or directed under the same infinite sets of possibilities and impossibilities..

Plus it should be noted that the definitive laws you speak of are definitional statements(represented mathematically or theoretically) of reality by piecing together patterns that produce a set of result/results under certain circumstances, not verbal laws like in a judiciary system. I. e to say they are derivatives we've observed to be true provided one or more conditions are met.

And I'd hardly agree that organisms and their environment are definitively sustainable,when 9/10 of all species are extinct(dead), with each chaotic extinction event leaving room for succession of both new organisms, typography,climate, etc.

Yes. Yet you exist. Your question only makes a case for me. I have proffered a logical measure already of what isn't permitted by chance. Stability and the systematic coordination that we observe all the time is not permitted by chance. Stability and purposeful and systematic coordination requires the right environments, etc.

No it doesn't,you agreeing that there are infinite odds against unlikely chance getting the exact same atoms and molecules to makeup myself but I still existing tells of how one can't use chance as a measure to gauge already existing bodies...

This all stems from a misunderstanding and/or misuse of probability(already exposed this in my first reply), probabilities tell future data, they fail when misused for gauging the existence of an exact type of figure or configuration, out of infinite sets for and against..

It is you who shifts goalposts by trying to claim that chance has infinite probabilities and systematics can be achieved in random systems while contradicting yourself in light of presiding laws and thresholds for the so called " random infinities" you suspect for the production of order. Law and order cannot exist side by side with infinite colliding systems.

I am not shifting any goalpost here...

The post you highlighted(my post),is on the improbability(note the word, "against" in the post) of getting an exact same configuration out of an infinite set of configurations... what in that is contradictory?

It's analogous to saying what are the odds against anyone(including myself) getting the type of dna configuration in my body out of an infinite set of configurations?

kennygee:
The camera doesn't work again.

Did you drop the phone or can you see any visible damage to the lens, if not good need to get it fixed under Carl are warranty.

kennygee:
I am using Injoo i2S and all I want to do is CRY.

go to your innjoo store to update the firmware, it's very touche after that.

shyna01:
even Hitler won't argue with you on this... Lol.
davien has it a little mixed up.

Supernovae nebulas still make stars, I exclusively already said that.. (below)

davien:
Actually the death of a star in a supernova, sends it's contents(hydrogen, helium, etc) out into space, if it's of sufficient mass, gravity pulls it into a star or planetoid through accretion.

And a nebula does not only refer to the leftovers of a supernova, young stars also fall in..

http://astroa.physics.metu.edu.tr/twn/types.html

Blakjewelry:
Nope, nebulas are the womb and birth place for stars and planets.

You do know star clusters and young stars are termed nebulae right?

Blakjewelry:
A dying Star usually contains heavy metals, infact stars are producers and source of heavy metal metals.
Secondly dying star do not for planetoid rather their size and mass will determine their fate.

The gas and dust leftover from their birth and death leads to planet formation.

Teempakguy:
not exactly. The star formed is a dwarf and is sort of a byproduct.

True stars are formed from hydrogen rich nebula.

That's not true, what do you think supplies nebulae with hydrogen?


"Actually, nebulae are not just the starting points of stellar evolution. Ironically, they can also be the end points. You can think of this as the nebula-star-nebula cycle. Stars that evolve into red giants can lose their outer layers during pulsations in their outer layers, known as their atmospheres. This released matter is typically 97% hydrogen and 3% helium, with a few other trace materials."

http://www.universetoday.com/61103/what-is-a-nebula/

Blakjewelry:
The death of a star does not give birth to a new star, rather the outcome depends on mass or size of the dying star. It can form a white dwarf, neutron star or a black hole

Actually the death of a star in a supernova, sends it's contents(hydrogen, helium, etc) out into space, if it's of sufficient mass, gravity pulls it into a star or planetoid through accretion.

Joshthefirst:
No. As a living organism, I use protein carriers and enzymes and other modalities to harness this random kinetic energy present in matter into the useful anabolic processes I carry out. Random energy can never be any use to me unless my body system harnesses it into orderly useful work. Your analogy is not an example of randomness birthing ordered processes. It is an example of modalities ordering random energy to carry out useful work.

And therein lies the reason I said you seek a vague goal for one to give you, where you could easily shift the goalpost..

But having that in mind that it would be easy for you to try to shift frames here I specifically gave that example so I could then ask you what purposefully harnesses such a process for the various reactions(combustion reactions, nuclear reactions, etc) that we observe in nature to be a direct result of the collisions from random or chaotic atoms/molecules?

Think a little farther. The presence of potential energy is useless without its utilization in an orderly system for the production of kinetic work. So potential energy of itself is useless. The Sun is a giant ball of billions of joules of potential energy, and it is only when this energy is ordered in the photosynthetic process that anabolism of glucose occurs.

Need i remind you that the sun utilizes it's own fuel(hydrogen and helium) to form higher elements, which arises from the chaotic bombardment of hydrogen atoms together(fusion)...

My point is that potential energy cannot yield any useful thing at random. It must be utilized in an orderly process to yield useful work. This is what we recognize even unknowingly in nature, and this is what makes phenomena predictable and scrutable in science. Randomness can yield nothing good of itself.

This is a red herring in which you assume that a living system or observer has to utilize the potential energy of a body for it to be useful,this is fallacious in the sense that a body with potential energy would still lose the energy contained to its surroundings regardless of being utilized by any living system.

An example is the earth that loses its heat of formation through radioactive decay and the result are stable daughter products of once chaotic radioactive isotopes.

Sorry, I wasn't astute with the bolded. What I meant to communicate was that atoms don't organize to form davien or bacteria or flies due to random processes, as nothing useful(especially davien) can arise from random movements of nature.

Still the question remains,that aren't there an infinite measure of chance or odds that go against the exact molecules and atoms that make up me(davien) in the exact same configuration and yet I exist,this is the common error you make in claiming improbability from randomness when you don't have a measure of what isn't permitted by chance in the first place,nor what counts as "chance"(again, leaving room for goalpost shifting)

Joshthefirst:
So give practical examples of random physical interactions that are responsible for ordered aspects of things observed, not far strung out theoretical nonsense. I have given examples, give yours. Show me how you think randomness can birth ordered processes. Not just ordered processes, but processes that tend to an increase in organization and efficiency of energetic processes.

Before I address this first post, I'll need to point out that the term of "randomness" in the context you want me to vouch for or be demonstrated, is vague and/or arbitrary...this leaves room for goal-post shifting.

But I'll draw an example you should be familiar with.

Consider a simple system of ideal gases(more specifically,the molecules zipping around in a random/brownian motion), when the particles randomly collide with one another, they transfer kinetic energy across the system(thereby the temperature),and since the average kinetic energy is determined by the speed of the collisions,then work is highly dependent on increasing those random collisions..

As a living breathing being you use such a system when you use oxygen to digest food,and other metabolic processes, which allows you to grow and build more structure to your body(which can be thought of as an "orderly" anabolic process)

Potential energy and potential capacity to do work is not useful energy.

This isn't true...

Potential energy is the energy that is contained in a body and has the potential for work,an example are batteries on your phone that possess a set amount of energy and potential for work.

No process that results in an increase in organization has ever resulted from any random process of potential energy. But ordered processes.(under the guideline of mathematical laws as plaetton put it).

Again your tautology here is purely vague, and begs the question of what potential energy you consider to be random.

Impossible odds. That even further supports my stance. Atoms, moving around in nature don't configure themselves without external purposeful influence and force. That, or I don't understand your statement.

@bolded,please provide the external influence you think purposefully or has intent of any kind in configuring atoms the way they are.....

Joshthefirst:
The scientific method is a great tool for examining and studying empirical evidence in our physical world. It is the very bedrock of the advancement in this modern age.

But it is also said to have birthed such contradictions as the theory of evolution and common descent and other notions that propose an origin of all that we see in the universe (including order!!!) from complete randomness...

I have a few questions (or maybe just a few things to point out) to plaetton and his evangelistic cohorts. Do you realize the scientific method and process and even the foundation of experimentation is as a result of man's belief that natural things and processes and structures have and follow a set order? If you do, how have you managed to blackmail your common sense into accepting disorder and randomness and the basis of all that exists, including your very organized self?

Please answer my questions directly and precisely.




cc: plaetton, muskeeto, thehomer, davien, kay17

Yes, it does stem from a belief that the universe can be understood by a set of naturalistic laws which appear "ordered", but ever since discoveries about the microscopic world and quantum physics(and many more observations) it's now common to see and demonstrate that random physical interactions can be responsible for ordered aspects of the things observed.

But the dilemma here isn't even the notion of randomness but what degree of it is truly useless, because a vacuum might be considered a disorderly body but in reality contain a set vacuum energy that is still useful or has capacity for work.

The fallacy here is one of misused probability,what aspect of things possible can there be an infinite number of odds against it?... what're the odds that the set of atoms in the exact same configuration and place in time would make up a person called davien?

If there is a god/gods and it has omniscience, then it absolutely knows what would change my mind and for some reason hasn't done it..

SirWere:
Er... Actually there is only one Major Scientific Topic which opposes Christianity, which is Evolution.

I'm an atheist I'll be blunt with you, evolution, the big bang theory, etc have nothing to say about god/gods...

It were Christians that came up with both theories(doesn't mean Christianity is by default true)and when the theory of evolution was bundled to court against "intelligent design", it were Christians and notably Kennett miller(also a Christian) that provided the various evidences of evolution in a courtroom and exposed intelligent design as a radical faith-based ploy...

so accepting those theories for then didn't affect their faith.

AllNaijaBlogger:
The issue here is simple. Can you prove that you are alive?

That would be continent on the proof required, and so far I match the basic biological definition... if you required that I prove my existence to you that would depend on the proof required.

You see, we take our existence as a given. But how are we sure we exist?

It's not about surety, but having a model of reality that best allows us to make sense of the world... so we mostly choose the philosophy of realism(the belief that things are real) out of its ease and practicality, else what reason would you have for making any post on naira land if you do not agree you're conversing with an intelligent agent.

We could all be in the matrix right now, simulating this nairaland conversation.

How would you deduce a simulation or "matrix" from reality(the world we mostly agree is real) if you're forever subject to the impulses your senses give you?

How do we know that this is not all a dream and we will wake up when we die.

*Above comment...

Just think about it. You only know that you were dreaming when you wake up. What if death is the only a wake-up?.

Again, the above comments I put up addresses that nobody could ever tell if it's all a dream, neither is there any reason to... only wishful thinking.

Inception. Cobbs's wife killed herself because she thought the real life was a dream and her dream the real life.

Many people have done various atrocities in "real life" under the suspicion that the reality they experienced wasn't real,they're locked up in asylums because they fail to or could not keep in touch with the reality we share due to mental problems...

I admit that I can't prove that I am in the matrix simulating real life. But then, you can't prove that you are 100% alive and not in some lab simulating this duscussion.

Okay, so does that imply the assertion you made is true?

One can not see beyond his own perception. The mind is our limit.

True,and again it says nothing about reality but that it's filtered by our senses.

AllNaijaBlogger:
It does.

Allnaijablogger: you could be a computer in the matrix simulating real life.


Davien: I am alive.


Both of us have to prove our claims.

Nope, either you fess up on the credibility of your claim or keep shut...

claiming the reality you experience isn't real,and then forwarding that claim to myself and others to debunking is a red herring and isn't a burden of proof meant for us....

vooks:
It's silly. Tell me something wise

That your chromosome #2 is a fusion site of two ape chromosomes..

Another crazy fact is that the planet would be pink if oxygen loving flora didn't exist, as the first plants were anaerobic pink proto-plants...

Angelou:
Have u come in contact with any physical and quantitative samples from this planet that suggests it can support life.... This appearance of the keipler planet is an image taken by a telescope.
U should remember that many assertions astronomers had about pluto was proved wrong when the New Horizon spacecraft passed it by (e.g pluto was slightly larger than the mass it was hitherto speculated to have)
so until a spacecraft lands on this so-called Earth 2.0 and takes samples that suggests the planet is bio-friendly thats when i'll believe that we have got a substitute to Mother Earth


given our current astronomical and space travel technology, it is quite impossiblee to reach this planet because it seems the planet is light years away from our location (light years mean the distance one can travel at the speed of light 186000km/s for a year).. Can u realize how far that is

By logical deduction.. . out of an infinite sea of billions of galaxies, suns, moons and planets,one must exist that mirrors the earth.

vooks:
It's not that you can't as yet, it's just that 'in the begining DIRT...' is the most ret@rded thing ever.

I have never understood why evolutionists divorce Origins from their theories. Who is supposed to account for origins? Orang-utans?

You're right, dirt or dust is a silly origin story.. and what did the Bible say about dirt becoming man?

Wouldn't that mean anyone killed,sick or found in a negative situation put him/herself there in the first place?

It's been so long I've spoken christianese,brings back memories... lol!

starlingslimnet:
That means Sin can't separate us from God in that the more sin abounds the more we go far away from him and the more we go away the more we die spiritually and the more God want us back to him,want to save us from death.So he keep loving us despite our failures

For his mercies endureth forever!

starlingslimnet:
It's not our duty it's Christ duty to present us Holy and Blameless to God our duty is witnessing to his resurrection.

Ah... but it is our duty to keep ourselves that way of our own free will...

iameugene:
so now it is floating like an iceberg? Bcux if it was uplifted its gonna leave d rightful position were it was b4 it came up. Or did it grow or wat

Truly the Lord says we must be like children to learn...
You can ask any geologist where land comes from and you'll get the same answer...

http://science.jrank.org/kids/pages/82/LAND-FORMATION.html

http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-4_u-460_t-1243_c-4746/vic/science/-from-the-earth-s-core-to-the-crust-/the-creation-of-landforms/types-of-landforms

starlingslimnet:
If sin can Christ would not have come

Love is what made him come.. . remember John 3:16?

starlingslimnet:
There is nothing in all creation that can separate us from the Love of God.

Sin

starlingslimnet:
In the days of those kings God will set up a Kingdom

And is that not our sworn duty to prepare the bride(kingdom) for the groom(heaven with Jesus)?