Random Rants Thread

Gee, you missed my point.Your original complaint was that natural selection was a non-random process in a sea of random processes. Hence, you implied that the video was justified to call the whole evolutionary thing a totally random process.At this point, I'm not even talking about evolution. Any program that uses the monte carlo method would have a single selective if-then statement in a sea of random numbers (I'm talking about literally millions of random numbers here) and random equations. And yet, I've been able to make pretty patterns and very nice curves as a result of this one selective if-then statement in a sea of random processes.So, clearly, just because a large part of a system depends on a random process doesn't mean you can make a blanket statement and call the whole thing a random process.That's what I was bitching and moaning about when I watched the video. Do you even know what the monte carlo method is? Have you even written a program or attempt to solve a physical or mathematical system with it?Frankly, having dedicated a large part of my life studying and using these concepts, I find your back hand waving dismissal very insulting.Here is another rant for you. Produce a scientific paper proving that the rest of us are dumbasses or...

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

My beef is the professing Christians here who seem to have some reason for claiming Christianity all the while, consitently arguing against anything Biblical which implies miracle or the supernatural. CHRISTianity is the Biblical NT religion rife with the supernatural and miracle, and conjuncts with the OT also rife with the supernatural and miracle.Perhaps to them it's some kind of a rabbit foot type thingy so as to hope to make it through the pearly gates up there somewhere if there be an afterlife.Then perhaps its a ploy so as to claim to be some kind of an authority when they debate against Biblical principles and doctrines which those of us who actually believe, i.e, the things that Jesus and his apostles, the OT historians, scribes and prophets advocated and taught, miracle and all.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

If you're not talking about evolution, then how does the MC method even apply to the conversation? You flip a coin in the air 10 times. 9 times it comes up tails. What are the odds that it will come up heads? It started out being 50/50, and even after a hundred tosses, a thousand, or a million, its still 50/50. Yes, I know what it is, no I've never written a program on it. We were talking about evolution, Taz, not computer programs. If you can reasonably demonstrate through simulation, the evolution of biological systems via one of these programs, I would very much like to see it.You should be made aware that I have written a new topic waiting for approval on evolutionary simulators. Perhaps that would be the most appropriate place to continue this particular discussion.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Amen... I second your rant. Since literally anyone can refer to themselves as a Christian, even without a single foundational element to justify doing so, people will make these kinds of claims. But really its as daft as a black man saying over and over again, "I'm an Asian woman, I'm an Asian woman." I guess my philosophy is, say it all you want, because either way I know, and more importantly, God knows, it isn't true. Saying it doesn't make it so.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

LOLSure Buz.And my rant is against the Professing Christians here that pervert Christ's message and make all Christians look like idiots.In particular the professing Christians that claim Prophecy and End Times Pull Shit Out Your Ass Theology and quotemine the Bible pulling stuff out of context.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree. Since literally anyone can refer to themselves as a Christian, even without a single foundational element to justify doing so, people will make these kinds of claims, but their posts simply show them to be intolerant bigots.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

If you're not talking about evolution, then how does the MC method even apply to the conversation?

---

Thus showing that you really don't know what the Monte Carlo method is.Here's a joke I picked up as an undergrad:You have a curve. How do you determine the area underneath it?Well, a mathematician would simply integrate the function and calculate it directly, but not everybody is so blessed as to be a mathematician.A chemist would graph the function, cut it out, and weigh it, comparing it to the weight of a single square of graph paper.A physicist would graph the function, put it up on the wall, and then throw a bunch of darts at it randomly. Given the percentage of darts that lands above the curve compared to those that land below, you can determine the area under the curve.I don't quite remember the way the joke said an engineer would do it, but that last method is the Monte Carlo method.What makes you think that the Monte Carlo method is only applicable to evolution?

quote:

---

You flip a coin in the air 10 times. 9 times it comes up tails. What are the odds that it will come up heads? It started out being 50/50, and even after a hundred tosses, a thousand, or a million, its still 50/50.

---

Actually, you start to suspect the coin isn't fair if it lands heads a hundred times in a row.

quote:

---

Yes, I know what it is, no I've never written a program on it.

---

So why are you restricting it to evolution?

quote:

---

If you can reasonably demonstrate through simulation, the evolution of biological systems via one of these programs, I would very much like to see it.

---

We have. Why don't you know about them? Haven't you done any research into the subject before you dismissed it? The GOLEM project evolved walking, for example.As I mentioned in your other thread, you are insinuating that evolutionary biologists are trying to pull a fast one: That their evolutionary models already have the answers pre-programmed into the system and they're only doing all this computer work to lend an air of legitimacy to their work.As mentioned there: The Boeing 777 was not designed by humans but rather was evolved by computers. By your logic, the programmers put the design into the computer. But if they did that, why on earth bother writing a program whose sole function is to spit out an answer we already know?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

If natural selection is the only non-random process within the theory of evolution, then the remaining percentage is random.

---

But natural selection isn't the only non-random process within evolution.Why don't you know this?I guess, that would be my rant: People who make profound statements when it is clear that they haven't bothered to do any research into the subject at all.This goes both for the small-version where the person is genuinely curious though of a very specific opinion and expects us to do their homework for them and the large-version where it doesn't matter how much you show them that their claim is false, they'll stick with their opinion. I find that many people claim to be the former when really they are the latter.The classic example of this is Michael Behe who claimed in his book, Darwin's Black Box, that there were absolutely no published studies into the evolution of molecular biology.A simple PubMed search turned up thousands of articles on the evolution of molecular biology. It is clear that he simply did not do the research into it.As an example of my last point, he then claims that it is impossible to remove one of the five fundamental parts of a mousetrap and have a functional mousetrap. He often carries around a mousetrap when making this point to an audience. It turns out that he was in a "debate" situation and the guy took his mousetrap, tossed out one of the pieces, and returned him a functioning mousetrap.Behe still claims that you can't do it, showing that it really doesn't matter what the evidence says: He'll claim that it doesn't exist.Edited by Rrhain, : Added comments that were more directly on-topic.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

You know what I hate?I hate it when young Americans don't think it is their civic responsibility to vote becasue they say "it doesn't make any difference", then they point to all of this campaigning they did on some issue to try to influence other people to vote in a certain way.Seems they think that voting matters for everybody else, but somehow they are personally off the hook.

And then, of course, we have the people who think that something that by making something a 'right' it also makes it an 'ethical requirement' to do; and golly jee, those people run around bitching at everyone how they should participate in every single right they have because it's part of their duty. Voting matters for no one. 100 extra votes in favour of my opinion. Minus one (mine) = 99.
1 vote in favour of your opinion + 0... = 1.So long as you're doing your 'civic duty', though, that's what counts .

quote:

---

Voting matters for no one.

---

It mattered to the people who died fighting for that right, like these folks:

quote:

---

100 extra votes in favour of my opinion. Minus one (mine) = 99.

---

LOL! What, do you think that somehow an election or referendum can't be lost by one vote?You not voting while pressuring others to vote = hypocrite.Besides, I thought you said that "voting matters for no one"?Which is it? Does it matter or not? Pick one. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

LOL ......And I suppose you think that's the source of the OT prophetic scriptures which Jesus the CHRIST/MESSIAH of CHRISTianity whom you profess to believe in cited to show the Jews that he was indeed the fulfilment of the messianic prophecies. Also see John 5:39 where Jesus told his accusers that the scriptures (OT) "bear witness of me." There are more.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

Take it to a thread if you think you can support your position.Or whine.Up to you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The engineer would get out a ruler and precisely measure out the dimensions to calculate the area?Nice joke.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Taz responds to me:

quote:

---

The engineer would get out a ruler and precisely measure out the dimensions to calculate the area?

---

No, that's how you directly calculate the integral. Integration is essentially the sum of inscribed polygons as the width of the polygon goes to zero.I'm thinking that the engineer simply looks it up in the CRC. Upon finding that it isn't in there, he tells his manager that it isn't going to work.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.