I don't know what you mean with cause and effect, explain. I don't know what you mean by complex universe either.
Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.
Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity.
In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very different from what we see in life.
Complexity arises from natural causes: for example, in weather patterns and cave formations.
Complexity is poorly defined.
Regarding Universal entropy: This idea has been put forward by many people to try to prove that evolution is impossible. However, it is based on a flawed understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, and in fact, the theory of evolution does not contradict any known laws of physics.
The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. "Entropy" is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to "disorder". Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.
However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered.
There are many examples from everyday life that prove it is possible to create order! For example, you'd certainly agree that a person is capable of taking a pile of wood and nails and constructing a building out of it. The wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe.
Or, if you prefer an example that doesn't require conscious human intervention, consider what happens when the weather changes and it gets colder outside. Cold air has less entropy than warm air - basically, it is more "ordered" because the molecules aren't moving around as much and have fewer places they can be. So the entropy in your local part of the universe has decreased, but as long as that is accompanied by an increase in entropy somewhere else, the second law of thermodynamics has not been violated.
That's the general picture - nature is capable of generating order out of disorder on a local level without violating the second law of thermodynamics, and that is all that evolution requires.
The idea of evolution is simply that random genetic mutations will occasionally occur that lead an individual organism to have some trait that is different from that of its predecessors. Now, it is true that these mutations, being random, would probably tend to increase the "entropy" of the population as a whole if they occurred in isolation (i.e., in a closed system). That is, most of the mutations will create individual organisms that are less "ordered" (i.e., less complex) and only some will create individual organisms that are more complex, so overall, the complexity goes down.
However, evolution does not take place in a closed system, but rather requires the existence of outside forces - i.e., natural selection. The idea is that there can be some environmental effect that makes organisms with a particular mutation (one that makes them more "complex") more likely to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. Thus, as generations go by, the gene pool of the species can get more and more complex, but notice that this can only occur if the gene pool interacts with the outside world. It is through the course of that interaction that some other form of entropy (or disorder) will be generated that increases the entropy of the universe as a whole.
If the above is too esoteric, consider a simple analogy: a poker tournament. In poker, good hands are less likely to be dealt than bad ones - for example, the odds of getting three of a kind are much less than the odds of getting two of a kind. So in a poker tournament, most people will be dealt bad hands and only a few will be lucky enough to be dealt good hands. But it is the people with good hands who will be more likely to win and "survive" to the next round. So the "outside forces" (in this case, the rules of poker) acting on a random distribution (all the poker hands that were dealt) will tend to select out the best, least likely ones.
Do you even do some research before posting a bunch of crap? Just google it my friend.
Great post here. As Astargath says, none of these "mathematical" or "irreducible complexity" arguments make any sense. You might believe that they somehow disprove evolution, but actual physicists and mathematicians disagree with you. That is because your arguments are flawed. There is no physical, mathematical or biological reason why a single common ancestor (LUCA), couldn't have spawned all life on Earth. You might believe it not to be so, and no-one knows exactly how it happened... BUT there is no scientific reason that it is not possible. And don't forget, we are debating the evolution of LUCA, not it's origin. Your evidence to the contrary is flawed, and every biologist, physicist and mathematician knows it. I myself study biology, and your arguments are flawed on a basic level. Not only that, when you are challenged, you resort to saying "well we don't know for sure that the laws of physics were the same then..." or something similar. This is not how science works - we don't just disregard results because we think that physics might have been different at a certain time. Assuming such changes, makes all results erroneous, and therefore makes the scientific method erroneous. So if you want to put your faith in such speculation, you cannot by definition make any argument relying on the scientific method. To do so would be a logical fallacy. Most of us have heard of rust. The longer something sits out in nature, the more it corrodes. Iron gets rustier the longer it sits out. Most of us have heard of decay. A chunk of cheese gets moldy. A piece of meat gets rotten. The longer it sits out, the more it decays. If the chemicals that make up a living cell (except that it isn't living, yet), happened to come together in the correct positions to form a living cell, the chemical soup that allowed this to happen would immediately corrode the potential cell before it had the chance to form life. If the chemicals came together over a period of time, they would corrode just like iron rusts. The longer it took for them to come together into the right places by chance, the more corrosion there would be. Either way, probability math in any form that we can come up with doesn't allow for a formation of cell chemicals, by chance, in nature. But, even if it did, then the chemicals would all have to be pushed into motion, in just the right places, at just the right time, with exactly the right "zap" of electricity, for the potential cell to come to life. By any understanding of nature that we can envision, this is impossible. If it were possible for nature to do it by chance, we would be able to do it in the lab. We aren't really even close to doing this from scratch, even though we have many cells available to use as patterns. Dumb nature certainly isn't going to do it. Because of all this, there is no logical reason to believe in any evolution without guidance from intelligence. And, that intelligence would have to be a lot greater and more capable than ours is. Scientists can talk all kinds of stuff. But they can't talk away the impossibility of nature to created a living cell by random chance. Probability math won't allow it. And, in the same way, probability math won't allow the changes in a living thing/cell that it would be required for it to mutate in a beneficial way. Evolution is a religion, and a sorry one. It's almost as bad of a religion as atheism.  You first speak of rusting. This is a basic oxidation chemical reaction, which occurs whenever certain elements are in contact with oxygen. This is chemistry at its most basic level - electrons being passed from one atom to another. You then speak of "decay". Now this is a very different process than oxidation, as it involves microbes such as bacteria and mould. Whole living cells which multiply on the surface of the cheese/meat. Then you say this: If the chemicals that make up a living cell (except that it isn't living, yet), happened to come together in the correct positions to form a living cell, the chemical soup that allowed this to happen would immediately corrode the potential cell before it had the chance to form life. Absolutely false. There is no law in physics or chemistry which states that chemicals will "immediately corrode" before they happen to come together into a certain configuration. Only certain chemicals change state, when they are introduced to other chemicals. Many are inert, and are extremely hard to get to react with others. It's all to do with the electron shells of the atoms in the chemicals, and whether those electrons are readily absorbed by other atoms. Either way, probability math in any form that we can come up with doesn't allow for a formation of cell chemicals, by chance, in nature. But, even if it did, then the chemicals would all have to be pushed into motion, in just the right places, at just the right time, with exactly the right "zap" of electricity, for the potential cell to come to life.
By any understanding of nature that we can envision, this is impossible. If it were possible for nature to do it by chance, we would be able to do it in the lab. We aren't really even close to doing this from scratch, even though we have many cells available to use as patterns. Dumb nature certainly isn't going to do it. Again, your reasoning is flawed. Even if you knew how to create a living cell from its constituents (which no scientist does), your argument that "if we can't do it in a lab, then nature couldn't do it" is ridiculous. Nature had 1 billion years, and a metric fuckton of molecules. Like, loads and loads of chemicals and molecules, spread over the whole Earth, for 10 million lifetimes of a human. That is a seriously long time, with a seriously large amount of chemicals. Is it that crazy to think that it happened, just by chance? Don't forget that as soon as a self replicating cell existed, it might quickly reproduce. As for your point about "probability math", well, probabilities are just that - chances of things happening. And it doesn't matter how small the chance is, if there is a chance then something CAN happen. And what we're describing certainly COULD happen, it is within the laws of physics. And it obviously did, because I'm here typing this now. |
|
|
|
Natives, Schmatives.
I get your point though, you're saying that the terrorists have Islamic roots.
Perhaps the UK should have been more restrictive on its immigration policy 50 years ago...
But don't forget that if that were the case, we probably wouldn't have the NHS, which benefited hugely from Pakistani and Indian immigrants in the 70s and 80s.
if our country wasn't able to get these qualified, immigrant nurses and doctors, we probably wouldn't have a free health service right now.
Until 1962 I believe every single member of the Commonwealth had the right to live and work in the UK. That would've added up to about 800 million people which would've been a squeeze. The Daily Mail has now gone full retard - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4578716/Apologists-terror-Corbyn-McDonnell-Abbott.htmlJudging by the comments even White Van Man is tiring a little now, or it's been invaded by Momentum. Bloody hell, I didn't read it all but the first few paragraphs read like full-on smear tactics, spin and scathing propaganda. I think they're scared... It's funny you mention "White Van Man". I know of the demographic, but perhaps if Theresa banned actual white vans, and kitchen knives, she might do a better job of combatting terrorism than demanding back doors in our internet applications... |
|
|
|
Vote for anti-Islamic politician, if you don't, your grandchildren will be Muslim.
There are no viable choices. The Labor party is the worst, but the Tories are not too far behind. Both are in for Muslim appeasement. And the UKIP is having hardly any chances in most of the regions, although they are very moderate. I am not a fan of the Tories, but they are the best option right now, Since Blair left, the Labour part has been in tatters, their leader Corbyn is a joke and I don't know how come he hasn't been challenged yet for the leadership of the party. You must be rich, or disillusioned. The Tories are in bed with big business, they will allow the inequality of the UK to become even more pronounced, by enforcing taxes on the poor and middle class, and allow offshore businesses to operate on our shores with zero contributions. They will give more power to the financial sector, hurting Bitcoin. They will enforce surveillance, both on our internet connections and our streets, invading the privacy of the population. They will fail to counter terrorist attacks, because they think that they can counter them with "internet surveillance", "banning encryption", "forcing companies to allow back doors in software", and "not allowing safe spaces on the internet". Thanks Theresa, for cutting 20% of our police officers when you were Home Secretary, police officers that could have prevented terrorist attacks. Instead you funnel our taxes into internet surveillance which achieves nothing (and many might argue endangers the privacy and civil liberties of your citizens). They refuse to legalise drugs - even when the majority of the USA is legalising marijuana for recreational use, they fail to see the moral side of the issue, and exempt our economy from the huge amount of revenue that this would generate. Because they need the votes of old, stupid people. They are stupid, archaic, and out of touch with the world of technology. I'm not a huge fan of Labour, but the Tories are fucking obsolete in terms of the technological world we live in today. I would hope that anyone on a Bitcoin forum could see that, and tactically vote against them. Bitcoin: This Machine Kills Inconveniences Tories |
|
|
|
|
I'm not watching youtube videos.
If you want to convince me you're gonna have to use words like a civilised person.
|
|
|
|
Who said I hate Muslims? I don't hate people.
I hate the Islamist ideology. I am all for freedom.
Freedom does not mean you allow the enemy to operate on your territory.
When you are at war, you need to protect your country and protect your borders. You do this to protect your freedoms, you little twit!!!
Firstly, there is no war. There are dumbass annoying twats blowing shit up - they are not part of an army. If there was an army, then there would be multiple attacks every day, and that's not the case. The war on terror is not a real war. It is a clash of ideologies of the west, and the individual extremist Islamists who choose to counter those ideologies. They are obviously tiny in number, as you are more likely to be killed by some furniture in the UK, than by a terrorist. They are pretty much all lone wolves. Secondly, protecting our borders will do absolutely no good, as the people that carry out these attacks are predominantly British citizens already. You are in denial. Go ahead, wait until you'll have multiple attacks every day. If you are non-Muslim go and live in Dearborn, MI. See how long you'll last. I think you are simply ill-informed and brainwashed. Nice arguments... oh wait. You didn't actually say anything. A. You claim to predict the future. B. You presume my religion and ask me to live somewhere else. C. You present an ad hominem attack on my character. Try addressing my points, rather than spouting random bullshit. |
|
|
|
Who said I hate Muslims? I don't hate people.
I hate the Islamist ideology. I am all for freedom.
Freedom does not mean you allow the enemy to operate on your territory.
When you are at war, you need to protect your country and protect your borders. You do this to protect your freedoms, you little twit!!!
Firstly, there is no war. There are dumbass annoying twats blowing shit up - they are not part of an army. If there was an army, then there would be multiple attacks every day, and that's not the case. The war on terror is not a real war. It is a clash of ideologies of the west, and the individual extremist Islamists who choose to counter those ideologies. They are obviously tiny in number, as you are more likely to be killed by some furniture in the UK, than by a terrorist. They are pretty much all lone wolves. Secondly, protecting our borders will do absolutely no good, as the people that carry out these attacks are predominantly British citizens already. |
|
|
|
Seen a few posts about watches, and I think G-Shocks are the daddies. Get stuffed with your automatic tourbillons and skeleton see-through backs... Give me a G-Shock baby, quartz movement all the way! What are your favourite G-Shocks, whether you own them or not? Post pictures. I am currently rocking a GW-A1100 most of the time.  I want to get a GXW-56 in army green:  Also would love a GWFD1000B-1, new Frogman G-Shock...  |
|
|
|
I don't know what you mean with cause and effect, explain. I don't know what you mean by complex universe either.
Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.
Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity.
In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very different from what we see in life.
Complexity arises from natural causes: for example, in weather patterns and cave formations.
Complexity is poorly defined.
Regarding Universal entropy: This idea has been put forward by many people to try to prove that evolution is impossible. However, it is based on a flawed understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, and in fact, the theory of evolution does not contradict any known laws of physics.
The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. "Entropy" is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to "disorder". Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.
However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered.
There are many examples from everyday life that prove it is possible to create order! For example, you'd certainly agree that a person is capable of taking a pile of wood and nails and constructing a building out of it. The wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe.
Or, if you prefer an example that doesn't require conscious human intervention, consider what happens when the weather changes and it gets colder outside. Cold air has less entropy than warm air - basically, it is more "ordered" because the molecules aren't moving around as much and have fewer places they can be. So the entropy in your local part of the universe has decreased, but as long as that is accompanied by an increase in entropy somewhere else, the second law of thermodynamics has not been violated.
That's the general picture - nature is capable of generating order out of disorder on a local level without violating the second law of thermodynamics, and that is all that evolution requires.
The idea of evolution is simply that random genetic mutations will occasionally occur that lead an individual organism to have some trait that is different from that of its predecessors. Now, it is true that these mutations, being random, would probably tend to increase the "entropy" of the population as a whole if they occurred in isolation (i.e., in a closed system). That is, most of the mutations will create individual organisms that are less "ordered" (i.e., less complex) and only some will create individual organisms that are more complex, so overall, the complexity goes down.
However, evolution does not take place in a closed system, but rather requires the existence of outside forces - i.e., natural selection. The idea is that there can be some environmental effect that makes organisms with a particular mutation (one that makes them more "complex") more likely to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. Thus, as generations go by, the gene pool of the species can get more and more complex, but notice that this can only occur if the gene pool interacts with the outside world. It is through the course of that interaction that some other form of entropy (or disorder) will be generated that increases the entropy of the universe as a whole.
If the above is too esoteric, consider a simple analogy: a poker tournament. In poker, good hands are less likely to be dealt than bad ones - for example, the odds of getting three of a kind are much less than the odds of getting two of a kind. So in a poker tournament, most people will be dealt bad hands and only a few will be lucky enough to be dealt good hands. But it is the people with good hands who will be more likely to win and "survive" to the next round. So the "outside forces" (in this case, the rules of poker) acting on a random distribution (all the poker hands that were dealt) will tend to select out the best, least likely ones.
Do you even do some research before posting a bunch of crap? Just google it my friend.
Great post here. As Astargath says, none of these "mathematical" or "irreducible complexity" arguments make any sense. You might believe that they somehow disprove evolution, but actual physicists and mathematicians disagree with you. That is because your arguments are flawed. There is no physical, mathematical or biological reason why a single common ancestor (LUCA), couldn't have spawned all life on Earth. You might believe it not to be so, and no-one knows exactly how it happened... BUT there is no scientific reason that it is not possible. And don't forget, we are debating the evolution of LUCA, not it's origin. Your evidence to the contrary is flawed, and every biologist, physicist and mathematician knows it. I myself study biology, and your arguments are flawed on a basic level. Not only that, when you are challenged, you resort to saying "well we don't know for sure that the laws of physics were the same then..." or something similar. This is not how science works - we don't just disregard results because we think that physics might have been different at a certain time. Assuming such changes, makes all results erroneous, and therefore makes the scientific method erroneous. So if you want to put your faith in such speculation, you cannot by definition make any argument relying on the scientific method. To do so would be a logical fallacy. |
|
|
|
Jihadism should be criminalized.
Well it's not exactly legal, is it, you prat.  If British people elect the Labour party it would mean they either don't care or don't understand what is going on.
You don't understand what's going on. The things the terrorists hate most are our freedom, democracy, tolerance, pluralism and decency. It's nothing more than provocation on their part. They want you to lower yourself to their level. They're goading you into fighting on their terms. They know that the more we try to tighten our grip, the more radicalised individuals we create. They want you to abandon all the things that make us who we are to fight them. Stop falling for it like an idiot. Stop giving in. For every person calling for a crackdown, deportations, destruction of mosques, etc, you are the ones attacking the exact same freedoms that the terrorists themselves are attacking. You're giving extremists exactly what they want, namely more extremism and further escalation. You don't defeat terrorists by letting them win. Try thinking it through to conclusion for a change. There are ways to beat terrorism that don't include debasing your morals to the point that you're no better than they are. Pity you're already there, though. Just don't expect the rest of us to join you. Great post. This is what I don't understand about the mindset of a Tory voter - The party will literally and flagrantly take away the freedoms that make Britain so great. Their nonsense about censoring the internet is especially worrying, yet they fail to put police on the street where they can actually make a difference. Theresa May cut thousands of police jobs when she was Home Secretary. Not to mention the immmigration debate which is ridiculous on two levels: Firstly the Conservative party has failed to curb immigration and it has increased while they were in power; secondly the majority of the terrorist attacks in recent months have been made by British citizens, so their immigration policy wouldn't have worked anyway. A vote for the Tories is not in 90% of the members' of this forum's interest... secondly the majority of the terrorist attacks in recent months have been made by British citizens.. BUT NOT NATIVES ..^^^ The parents come over for a job and have a baby and then teach that child WHAT?.. Well if i am from ITALY i will teach my child even though i live in Spain how to make PASTA or become a gangster the MAFIA and will teach them CHRISTIANITY .. Now if your from CHINA even though you live in the UK you teach your child how to make PEKING DUCK and have a BET.. Now if your from PAKISTAN you will teach your child to do WHAT even though you live in Spain?.. would they teach the daughters to go out and enjoy themselves and have a boy friend?.. would they teach them CHRISTIANITY and to forgive all?.. I could imagine they teach them the ways of the KORAN being a MUSLIM Natives, Schmatives. I get your point though, you're saying that the terrorists have Islamic roots. Perhaps the UK should have been more restrictive on its immigration policy 50 years ago... But don't forget that if that were the case, we probably wouldn't have the NHS, which benefited hugely from Pakistani and Indian immigrants in the 70s and 80s. if our country wasn't able to get these qualified, immigrant nurses and doctors, we probably wouldn't have a free health service right now. |
|
|
|
|
OK I'm just gonna say that the system we have in place at the moment is not true capitalism.
It's a sort of "crony capitalism" where certain corporations become incredibly powerful because they can control the market to some extent. They collude with each other to lock out smaller, more innovational companies. ANd this is mainly because banks and financial companies wield so much power, and that the bigger your company is, the easier it is for it to make money.
Example: Amazon, it has the capital to make losses in some countries, while it uses tax loopholes so it can pay zero tax in other countries. This make's it almost impossible for competitors to combat it.
Banks themselves are another good example, they grind money away from the poor, and put their capital into funds that will make them serious money, that the poor people have no way of accessing.
Bitcoin can change all that, if enough people get involved...
|
|
|
|
|
All drugs should be legalized.
It's obvious that controlling recreational drugs does not lead to less people dying - just look at the opioid overdose epidemic in the USA right now. If you make drugs illegal then a black market will prop up around it and more people will end up dying due to impure and unregulated product. eg. heroin cut with fentanyl.
Countries should at least adopt a decriminalising system as Portugal has done, by decriminalising drugs you treat drug addiction as a health issue rather than a legal issue, helping addicts of drugs like opiates and methamphetamine, rather than throwing them in jail.
Not to mention, in the USA especially, the fact that drug users are put in jail fuels the private prison system. It is easy to see that the whole social movement of drug use has been turned into a business, with private prison companies profiteering from the unfortunate circumstances of many individuals.
At least the USA is leading the cause for marijuana legalisation...
|
|
|
|
Jihadism should be criminalized.
Well it's not exactly legal, is it, you prat. If British people elect the Labour party it would mean they either don't care or don't understand what is going on.
You don't understand what's going on. The things the terrorists hate most are our freedom, democracy, tolerance, pluralism and decency. It's nothing more than provocation on their part. They want you to lower yourself to their level. They're goading you into fighting on their terms. They know that the more we try to tighten our grip, the more radicalised individuals we create. They want you to abandon all the things that make us who we are to fight them. Stop falling for it like an idiot. Stop giving in. For every person calling for a crackdown, deportations, destruction of mosques, etc, you are the ones attacking the exact same freedoms that the terrorists themselves are attacking. You're giving extremists exactly what they want, namely more extremism and further escalation. You don't defeat terrorists by letting them win. Try thinking it through to conclusion for a change. There are ways to beat terrorism that don't include debasing your morals to the point that you're no better than they are. Pity you're already there, though. Just don't expect the rest of us to join you. Great post. This is what I don't understand about the mindset of a Tory voter - The party will literally and flagrantly take away the freedoms that make Britain so great. Their nonsense about censoring the internet is especially worrying, yet they fail to put police on the street where they can actually make a difference. Theresa May cut thousands of police jobs when she was Home Secretary. Not to mention the immmigration debate which is ridiculous on two levels: Firstly the Conservative party has failed to curb immigration and it has increased while they were in power; secondly the majority of the terrorist attacks in recent months have been made by British citizens, so their immigration policy wouldn't have worked anyway. A vote for the Tories is not in 90% of the members' of this forum's interest... |
|
|
|
Again, don't you think it's odd that less than 1% of actual scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics agree with you? Why do you think that is?
Is that an accurate statistic? Even if it is, scientists make mistakes all the time. The reason that they create theories is to attempt to correct their mistakes. Why not be mistaken about evolution?Because there is a huge amount of evidence supporting it, and barely any disproving it. That's why all credible scientists believe it. So your answer to why basically all scientists believe in this supposedly flawed theory is "they might be mistaken". OK, what are your thoughts on my other question about free will? I read your last few posts, and although you use scientific language you don't actually explain what you mean in a coherent manner, so it's impossible to debate your points. I explained why the theory of evolution cannot logically become a law, yet you make up your own rambling explanation about "cause and effect" etc. Like I said earlier, I've grown disinterested in convincing you of certain scientific facts, but I'm eager to know your thoughts on the free will problem in a deterministic universe, if everything is programmed. Bonus question: What are your thoughts on the randomness of radioactive decay? |
|
|
|
Dude I think you need to read the whitepaper and research asymmetric key cryptography.
But what if all the current, media-advertised quantum computer development is crap. What if the quantum computer was perfected long ago, by IBM, and they have already decrypted all the Bitcoin addresses, and could control it all at a moment's notice. All they might be waiting for is Bitcoin to take over the world when the fiat bubble collapses. Then IBM would have the people in their iron fist. Although highly unlikely (even if there was a secret, perfected quantum computer, they aren't very good at bruteforcing SHA256 or elliptical curve cryptography. What's more, if your bitcoin is sitting in a paper wallet whose address has never been broadcasted to the network, it becomes even more unlikely that it is vulnerable), it's a distant possibility. But then they wouldn't need to attack Bitcoin, because even if there was a fiat bubble collapse, there would be more incentive in attacking other avenues such as online banking, hedge fund accounts, stock exchange systems etc, which use similar cryptography. Even if Bitcoin took over 20% of the whole world's economy (which is ludicrous, at least for the next decade or so), there's no motive to attack it over other more lucrative targets. So the theory fails technologically, and logically. |
|
|
|
|
Dude I think you need to read the whitepaper and research asymmetric key cryptography.
|
|
|
|
BADecker, if you want to have a proper discussion about these sort of topics then you need to: A. Stop moving the goalposts around. You can't try and use scientific evidence to prove one of your points, and then turn around and say something like "ah but in the distant past we're not sure that time and space were running at the same speed they are today... so anything could be possible...". That kind of logic renders any discussion meaningless. B. Listen to people when they tell you simple facts about semantics. For example, the definition of a scientific theory. Arguing about these things just muddy the waters. And did you read my questions a few pages upthread? I don't believe you replied to them... [edit] 1. You say that all change, including evolution, is "programmed" into the universe through cause and effect. Now this is a valid philosophical position, which I believe means you view the universe as "deterministic". However, if all change is programmed, then this means that we have no free will, because everything we do is a result of cause and effect, and not our own decisions. Didn't god gift us with free will? If so, how do you resolve this problem?
2. Put all ideas of faith in deities or science aside for a moment. Don't you think it's strange that although you say evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible, the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians disagree with you? Are they lying, or do you know more about science and maths than them? Or do you have another explanation? Now think about what you just said. And think about what I have been saying. Both, science law and science theory are based on the idea that things have been working somewhat like they presently are throughout the past. The difference is that science theory is known to be based on probability, while science law is based on fact. Evolution is science theory that has been debunked by science fact. No, you still don't understand the difference. A scientific law is a description of a phenonemon - it tells us what happens within certain parameters. A scientific theory aims to tell us why it happens. They are two different things, and a theory doesn't just turn into a law if it's been proven enough times. Apples and oranges.
Now, let's go the next step. Let's consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past. Some of these changes nullify science law. But science theory is essentially nullified already, by the fact that it is based on probability. What is left?
The religious writings, and the traditions regarding each... plus a certain amount of archaeology. In these, the Bible reigns supreme among records from the past. There are some very good reasons why, not the least of them being the strength of Bible followers of today.
If we consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past, then anything anyone says about the past can conveniently be nullified. That includes any and all of your "scientific evidence" for evolution being false. So we're back to square one. Your argument is a ridiculous catch 22. And then you say that the Bible somehow rises above all this pseudo-philosophical claptrap, and is somehow more credible. Not only that, but one of the reasons you give is that Bible followers are strong in numbers... By that logic, the Backstreet Boys are one of the most musically talented groups that has ever been, and the Fast and Furious films are some of the finest pieces of cinema in the history of mankind. Any way you look at it, evolution isn't even in the running science-wise. The fact that it is still around proves it is a hoax. Again, don't you think it's odd that less than 1% of actual scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics agree with you? Why do you think that is? |
|
|
|
All it takes is terror and suicide bombings, rapes and murders!
Don't forget the sensationalist media and the overactive imaginations of billions of people! People I know keep getting scared about this shit, they don't realize they're more likely to be killed or raped on their daily commute by a random assailant, than they are by terrorists. They don't understand that this sort of attitude is letting the terrorists win... |
|
|
|
BADecker, if you want to have a proper discussion about these sort of topics then you need to: A. Stop moving the goalposts around. You can't try and use scientific evidence to prove one of your points, and then turn around and say something like "ah but in the distant past we're not sure that time and space were running at the same speed they are today... so anything could be possible...". That kind of logic renders any discussion meaningless. B. Listen to people when they tell you simple facts about semantics. For example, the definition of a scientific theory. Arguing about these things just muddy the waters. And did you read my questions a few pages upthread? I don't believe you replied to them... [edit] 1. You say that all change, including evolution, is "programmed" into the universe through cause and effect. Now this is a valid philosophical position, which I believe means you view the universe as "deterministic". However, if all change is programmed, then this means that we have no free will, because everything we do is a result of cause and effect, and not our own decisions. Didn't god gift us with free will? If so, how do you resolve this problem?
2. Put all ideas of faith in deities or science aside for a moment. Don't you think it's strange that although you say evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible, the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians disagree with you? Are they lying, or do you know more about science and maths than them? Or do you have another explanation? |
|
|
|
|
Just for fun, let's say everything you Flat Earthers say is true.
Some questions about the cover up:
1. Roughly how many people would have to be conspiring to cover this up? I would guess at least 10,000, probably closer to 1m+
2. What benefit would these people have from covering up such a massive fraud? Where's the motive in all this?
And a third bonus question:
3. If everything you say is true, flat plane, dome, spotlight moon and sun, ice wall, projected stars etc... Do you have any idea how it all came to be? I mean the religious guys will just say "God made it that way.", but how about you non-religious ones. How do you think everything came about?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
