Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: L-M-M-F: RAOS

Expand Messages
  • Dave Oldridge
    From: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:17 PM
    Message 1 of 123 , Nov 1, 2012

       

       

      From: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank
      Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:17 PM
      To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: L-M-M-F: RAOS

       




      Dave Oldridge

      FRANKS REPLY :

      Rand om alterations are HIGHLY IMPROBABLE  of impro ving a sub-optimal solution .

       

      Dave:

      If something is totally un-optimal, ANY change (random or otherwise) will, with mathematical precision, be an improvement.

       

      But then you are too smart to figure that ou t.

      FRANKS REPLY : You  are too DUMB to figure out that if something is totally un-optimal,   then ANY change will , with ma thematical precision,  not be an improvement.

       

      The less optimal the solution ,  the greater unlikelihood a random change will improve it .

       

      Dave:

      And here we have the living proof that you are too smart to figure that out.

      FRANKS REPLY : And here we have the living proof that YOU are too DUMB to figure that out .

      Also,  these “random alterations”   MUST BE  within a  solution set  to BEGIN to even have any probability  of improvement !

      The “random alterationsR 21;  within  GA programs   , are   from within narrowly  defined  parameters and  defined sets  of  possibilities !!

       

      Dave:

      Same with random alterations to genetics.  Again, you are clearly too smart to figure that out.  You are probably too smart to figure out how to add a column of figures, too.

      FRANKS REPLY :   Random changes in GENE TICS are NOT likely within a solution set ! &n bsp; Again , YOU are too DUMB to figure that out !

      You are probably too DUMB to figure out how to add a column of figures !!!

      Given a SET of solution characteristics ,  eventually a combination MAY &nb sp;be found  to  satisfy  a  minimal   solution  space !

      Dave:

      You’re blathering.  And have already demonstrated your ignorance adequately.

      I would dr eam of trying to insult your intelligence.  It would first have to exist!

      FRANKS REPLY :  You’re BLATHERING , and have already demonstrated your ignorance more than adequately !!!

      I would dream of insulting your “intelligence” ,    but it obviously does not exist except in your own  mind of STUPIDITY !!

       

      Dave:

      It must be hell to be you. To know that you are stupid beyond telling and to be totally unable to keep yourself from revealing it to everyone.

       

      If the injury was not self-inflicted and self maintained, I would have sympathy for you. But as it is, I have none.

       

      Your stupidity is manifest for all to see. I could probably spot you your entire intelligence quotient and still have a functioning human being. Of course you are not a functioning human being. You are either a very poorly programmed robot, or a self-made moron. My guess is the latter.

       

      I guess, in your world, the room for improvement shrinks, the more improvement is possible. It could be, that you actually have deluded yourself into thinking that the Bizarro world is the real world. After all, your contact with reality is very, very tenuous at best.

       

      --

       

      Dave Oldridge

      FRANKS REPLY :   Your stupidity  combined with your  INEPTNESS to  refute  anything I’ve said  with SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE , instead of  STUPIFIED character assassination ,   PROVES that YOU are INEPT   !!   

      Your  IRRELEVANT   blatherings   are the PROOF for all to see  of your  macabre INEPTNESS  !!

       

      Dave:

      Bored now. Is clear that you have nothing else to say. You are terminally stupid. I can get better answers from a rock...

       

      But then you knew that, you just don't want to admit it – even to yourself.

       

      --

       

      Dave Oldridge

      FRANKS REPLY :  Dave is the perfect example of a LOSER !!

      Everyone KNOWS that when an opponent has nothing to offer in refute of the evidence except “character assassination”  , then that opponent “Dave Oldridge”  has LOST the debate  !!

      It is now CLEAR to everyone that Daves irrelevant blatherings  are the PROOF of his INEPTNESS to substantiate his original claims ,   thus  EVIDENCING his STUPIDITY  !!

       

      Dave:

      And here we see Frank actually making an example of himself. I have not assassinated his character. It is a suicide. It is also clear that Frank could not (or would not) think his way out of a paper bag.

       

      Frank = LOSER

       

      --

       

      Dave Oldridge

    • Frank
      From: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of SH Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 5:29 AM
      Message 123 of 123 , Dec 2, 2012

         

         

        From: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of SH
        Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 5:29 AM
        To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] SF. FF.////Re: L-M-M-F: RAOS

         

         



        "...randomness is a human heuristic."
        ~ Frank, saying something stupid again.

        > > > > > It doesn't mean we can actually see
        > > > > > the individual wavelengths !
        > > > >
        > > > > Tin: We can SEE the visible light, which
        > > > > is why it's called visible light. Ha, ha, ha.
        > > > >
        > > > > FRANKS REPLY :
        > >
        > > Tin:
        > > Let's check together to see if your
        > > comments STILL look stupid......
        > >
        > > "Visible light is not visible."
        > > ~ Frank being stupid.

        Tin: ...hmmmm. Yup. Franktards
        comment above is still stupid.

        > >
        > > Let's try.....
        > >
        > > "The steps toward a solution ARE KNOWN IN ADVANCE".

        Tin: ...why would anyone says something stupid
        like that ?

        > >
        > >
        >
        > Tin: ...why would anyone say something
        > THAT stupid about GAs ?
        >

        > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Tin thinks we can see Electro-magnetic radiation !
        > >
        > > Tin: Hey Stupid !
        > >
        > > Do photoreceptors respond to EMR ?
        > >
        > > Do photoreceptors respond differentially
        > > to different physical features of EMR ?
        > >
        > > Franktard is still hopeless incompetently
        > > & congenitally too plum stupid to comprehend the
        > > basic terminology and science behind the
        > > relationship between physics and psychology.
        >
        > "There are NEVER any beneficial mutations."
        > ~ Frank, being stupid.
        >
        > >
        > > FRANKtardS REPLY :
        >
        > > RESPONSE of
        > > PERCEPTUAL COLOR to EM wave frequencies,
        > > is NOT equivalent
        >
        > Tin: Hey stupid!
        >
        > What do you suppose differentiates
        > the visible portion of the EMR spectrum from
        > the rest ? Ha, ha, ha, ha...what
        > a Franktard.
        >
        > FRANKS REPLY :

        > Nothing differentiates the "visible"
        > portion of EMR from the rest ,

        Tin: WRONG! And stupid.

        The visible portion of EMR is
        visible.

        The NONvisible portion of the
        EMR is NOTvisible.

        Frank is really, really, stupid.

        FRANKS REPLY :  Tin shows off his stupidity again and again .   As I said, and Tin “conveniently”  cut  off  from the above ,  is the ONLY  DIFFERENTIATING  factor  between   the  “visible”  portion  of  EMR  waves and  the rest of EMR waves , is  their FREQUENCIES  !!!

        The “visible”  portion of EMR  is NOT VISIBLE  !!!    The  signals (frequencies)  are just  used by the brain  to construct  an  IMAGE of  an OBJECT !

        You  only  SEE  an OBJECT  !  So, the ONLY THING VISIBLE ,  is a colorized object !! 

        Tin thinks he can see the frequencies of wavelengths  of  Electro-Magnetic Radiations  that  disperse   radially   throughout the air and space !

        Tin  is soooooo   stupefied   in his own ignorance  !

         



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.