Posts Tagged ‘materialista’

Teorema do macaco infinito: para entender o infinito absurdo da Mente que acredita no Acaso como criador da Vida

terça-feira, junho 4th, 2019

xxxx

Ora bolas! Isso que é demonstração da inteligencia de um materialista. Faz parte do tal Calculo das Probabilidades e Estatísticas… Mas também usado largamente como chacota por criacionistas como demonstração da inteligencia de um deísta bíblico para provar sua crença na vida criada por um Intelligent Designer… O teorema sugere que se um infinito numero de macacos infinitos estivessem brincando com átomos, acabariam por criar um outro macaco com quem brincar…

 

Teorema do macaco infinito afirma que um macaco digitando aleatoriamente em um teclado por um intervalo de tempo infinito irá quase certamente criar um texto qualquer escolhido, como por exemplo a obra completa de William Shakespeare.

Pode-se também pensar que, com infinitos macacos infinitos, algum deles irá quase certamente criar um texto escrevendo assim: ” Eu sou um macaco infinito imaginado pelos humanos que esta escrevendo sobre macacos infinitos. Parem este mundo onde tem humanos que eu quero descer senão estes humanos loucos vão me deixar louco…”.

( continuar a ler em…

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teorema_do_macaco_infinito

Grande critica ao pensamento filosofico materialista ( vulgo cientista)

quinta-feira, novembro 9th, 2017

xxxx

(Obtido num debate no YouTube, video “Origens da Vida…”

Annoyingly fallacious mentality. Obviously you don’t know any scientists. If you did, you’d know these statements that you made about ridicule are stupid. You see pop culture scientists do it, scrubs like Tyson so, you think all scientists are cocky, rock-star wannabes. Also. this isn’t a science journal. However, lets use your obvious attempt to pigeon hole normal people who want to discuss these barely intelligible theories.

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein can all be discounted because of a total lack of “impact factor.” They were reviewed by their peers.

And it was strong across the board that their contemporaries thought some of their ideas were absurd. So, there’s that to deal with. Any impact factor generated by circulating their works posthumously doesn’t count, those aren’t peers.

As usual a BS double standard in order to co-opt a discussion and kill it. Which, is exactly what you did.

Here’s how the two main paradigms work:

S v R

Religion makes you a sinner if you DO believe. What else would we need Baby Jesus for?

Science makes you ignorant, stupid or insane if you DON’T believe. (Yes. I’m quoting the R-tard Dawkins).

Not hard to see why so many choose science.

Go along to get along. In fact, Christians by the hordes accept evolution. I am not Religious. Don’t believe in any form of God(s), I have ever heard of. Just to be clear. If science was as absolute, as you claim it is, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. It would be an actual fact, not one by default. (This video is proof of how much evidence you don’t need to have. It was disingenuous on many accounts.) Fact by default? Gravity, Heliocentric model and Evolution (to name a few) are only taken as fact because they feel it’s tested enough and won’t be proven false. That’s it. That’s the only reason scientific theories are “fact.” But that’s what happens when you stray from actual science to Empiricism and Inductive reasoning. Empiricism – Sensory Data. Inductive Reasoning – Probability (in many theories massively low probability) Interesting FACT. Look up Empiricism. It’s also a theory. either way, right off the bat, this is a formula for horrible and erroneous so-called science. Remember Aquatic Ape Theory, Piltdown man, Haeckel’s embryology? Walking whale fossils (rodhocetus), that was a fun one. Many people don’t even know that these were fake or erroneous to this day. You’re using this peer review crap to trap people and quoting crap verbatim that you clearly don’t understand yourself. Obviously, most, if not all pop culture scientists will agree with each other If not, you can just be dismissive, right? Like Krauss, when real scientists blasted his BS about Quantum Religion. Dawkins and Krauss write and argue like philosophers because they are. Doesn’t matter how much they paid for their education and what it is in. Recognize this, there are two types of science. Science you actually use (at your job for example), and science you can only talk about, because it doesn’t exist anywhere in real life.