Maths and evolution

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

Math depends on assumptions or paradigms. The assumptions for hard-core sciences are axioms or self evident intuitions. [Euclid's and Newton's] axioms come to mind. They are all a priori true or self-evidently true. In contrast, there is not a single assumption in the evolution[ary] field that is self-evidently true or can qualify as [an] axiom. Nearly all [of the] assumptions in that field are in fact self-evidently false.



source
 

Caledvwlch

New member

Math depends on assumptions or paradigms. The assumptions for hard-core sciences are axioms or self evident intuitions. [Euclid's and Newton's] axioms come to mind. They are all a priori true or self-evidently true. In contrast, there is not a single assumption in the evolution[ary] field that is self-evidently true or can qualify as axiom. Nearly all assumptions in that field are in fact self-evidently false.



source

Have you ever managed to convince anyone? I've read plenty of your posts, and while I suppose I appreciate your dedication to your cause, I've never seen anything that doesn't boil down to:

:mock: Evolutionists

Is convincing people even your goal?
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned

Math depends on assumptions or paradigms. The assumptions for hard-core sciences are axioms or self evident intuitions. [Euclid's and Newton's] axioms come to mind. They are all a priori true or self-evidently true. In contrast, there is not a single assumption in the evolution[ary] field that is self-evidently true or can qualify as [an] axiom. Nearly all [of the] assumptions in that field are in fact self-evidently false.



source

Maths isn't a word. it's mathematics
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Have you ever managed to convince anyone?
Have you ever made a rational objection?

I've never seen anything that doesn't boil down to [mocking evolutionists]
Any time evidence and reasoning starts, the evolutionists run for the hills.

I've posted a quote and a source. Feel free to engage rationally.

Is convincing people even your goal?
Science is not about convincing people of anything; it is about testing ideas against evidence.

If you will not be swayed by evidence, what chance do I have?
 

Caledvwlch

New member
Any time evidence and reasoning starts, the evolutionists run for the hills.

I've posted a quote and a source. Feel free to engage rationally.

Yes, you've done so, but all the quote is saying is that certain assumptions are self-evidently false. It doesn't say which ones, so it's hard to spot the self-evidence.
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned

It should make sense that biology doesn’t always act according to overall general rules. It is itself a very encompassing science, which uses many of the other “pure” physical sciences to help explain natural processes. The elements of probability and chance are a result of such complexity. The reason they play such a big role is that there are so many factors to deal with in nature. Rules change over time and between environments. Maybe evolutionary theory in biology is too wide ranging to be condensed into a reasonably sized axiomatic system. An evolutionary axiomatic system without modification of theory in specific cases would be composed of too many if-then statements to count, and therefore not practical.



source
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It should make sense that biology doesn’t always act according to overall general rules.

Only if you're sold out to the idea of evolution as fact.

Every idea that wants to call itself scientific will be accessible to rigorous mathematical treatment. Even random number analysis has mathematical models that govern it.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
All the quote is saying is that certain assumptions are self-evidently false.
Nope. It says more than that.
It doesn't say which ones, so it's hard to spot the self-evidence.

Try to pick out the main point of a thread and address that instead of pretending that a response to a side-issue is good enough. :up:
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
It seems that the really important issue here is whether you are supposed to say 'math' or 'maths'. Nothing else matters.
I agree. If there was a citation of the source then there might be more to discuss. As it is, it is just a random, anonymous quote that means nothing.
 

PureX

Well-known member

Math depends on assumptions or paradigms. The assumptions for hard-core sciences are axioms or self evident intuitions. [Euclid's and Newton's] axioms come to mind. They are all a priori true or self-evidently true. In contrast, there is not a single assumption in the evolution[ary] field that is self-evidently true or can qualify as [an] axiom. Nearly all [of the] assumptions in that field are in fact self-evidently false.



source
Ppfftt! :chuckle:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I agree. If there was a citation of the source then there might be more to discuss. As it is, it is just a random, anonymous quote that means nothing.

1. Learn to read.

2. Evolutionists hate not having a source to talk about. They cannot operate without an ad hominem option.
 

Stuu

New member

Math depends on assumptions or paradigms. The assumptions for hard-core sciences are axioms or self evident intuitions. [Euclid's and Newton's] axioms come to mind. They are all a priori true or self-evidently true. In contrast, there is not a single assumption in the evolution[ary] field that is self-evidently true or can qualify as [an] axiom. Nearly all [of the] assumptions in that field are in fact self-evidently false.


[Retracted]

Stuart
 
Last edited:

chair

Well-known member
1. How did this thread get re-opened? It looked closed to me yesterday- as if (gasp!) someone had closed it to prevent criticism.
2. Reading the OP, I see "Nearly all [of the] assumptions in that field are in fact self-evidently false." I do not see any mention of what these assumptions supposedly are, and why they are self-evidently false. No, it is not a difficulty in reading on my part, or my avoiding dealing with the question at hand. There really is nothing specific to respond to in the (plagiarized- edit: my apologies- actually not)OP.
 
Last edited:
Top