Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,079
- 5,450
- 136
buckshot is the mildly more literate version of Texashiker, wherein he has decent command of multisyallabic verbiage.
but equally immune to logic and reason.
buckshot is the mildly more literate version of Texashiker, wherein he has decent command of multisyallabic verbiage.
But where did those traits come from?
I'll make it simple for you. Can you demonstrate that genetic copying errors and selection can turn self replicating molecules into sexually replicating organisms? And how about the formation of meiosis itself?
And how did those traits first get introduced? Genetic copying errors is a big part of this theory. The mixing of traits is going to have a limited effect, you need genetic copying errors. In order to get an Uno hand you need the cards, you can't shuffle a deck of regular cards until you get a draw 4 card. You need new cards.The traits came from the parent organisms as encoded by their dna/rna.
Fair enough.As for demonstrating what you want, no I cannot demonstrate it in a forum post. The best I can do is link you to scientific research or provide you with a verbal explanation.
Buckshoot is such a person.... There are literally tons of people like this. I added the word some, so you can't complain.I do not accept this premise.
I do not accept this premise.
I do not accept this premise.
You do not appear to have a firm grasp on number theory at all.
Your premises are unsubstantiated so your conclusion is unsound.
You're just shifting the goalposts. Moreover, adding the word "some" admits that there exist counterexamples to your premise, defeating its relevance.Buckshoot is such a person.... There are literally tons of people like this. I added the word some, so you can't complain.
The premise is still unacceptable. The Mahayana Buddhists and Secular Humanists are two of many counterexamples.That's an expanded definition that holistically ecompasses cults, religions, and myths. Even if you want to narrow the scope, it won't change the result.
That's easy. The belief that a flipped coin will show heads is more probably true than the belief that a six-sided die will show a six.Ohh this should be good. Prove it! Prove one completely unsubstantiated belief is superior to another. No, they are equal.
You haven't established the previous premise, and as I've shown, it appears to be false.Just like two marbles in a bag have an equal chance to be randomly picked. They might not be identical in every way, we don't even fully understand everything about those marbles, but we don't need to! All we need to know is that the process in picking them is random.
No, it is number theory. A really, really big number |= "near infinite." In addition, your premise makes some baseless assumptions about the enduring existence of humans into the future.This isn't number theory, so much as basic statistics.
Number theory is the study of the set of positive whole numbers
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, . . . ,
which are often called the set of natural numbers. We will especially want to study
the relationships between different sorts of numbers
Your arguments against the premises are weak at best.... Again, you aren't making any arguments!
"I dismiss this premise" is not an argument!