Strange

What is it about Creationists that make them so dishonest? Why cherry pick part of a definition, when you could easily have included the whole thing? "2. the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter. "

And the point is?

There are a number of possible explanations and hypotheses that are being explored. This is too big a subject to be summarised in a forum post. I suggest you read up on it (keyword: abiogenesis) and then come back if you have any specific questions.

Given some of the "design decisions" he has made, it isn't even clear that he is very intelligent. So, perhaps, not evil just incompetent. ("Doh. I never realised those cute mosquitoes would kill so many people" ... "Doh. I thought having volcanoes would brighten the place up. I didn't mean to destroy an entire civilization" ... "Doh. I didn't realise that giving those people resistance to malaria would cause a crippling disease." ... "Doh. I ...") He should have put a proper test plan in place before he started.

Is there a point you are trying to make? If so, it is not very clear.

So you think some higher consciousness designed the universe based on man-made units? How did it know in advance what the metre was going to be?

Then why do you keep bringing up the (irrelevant) example of a mobile phone? Sorry, we see it so often, I just assumed it was the usual dishonest "just asking a question" tactic employed by creationists.

In which case there is no way of defining their relative speed.

I think "we" agree that life arose through natural chemical and physical processes. You seem to have a different opinion. Could you present some objective evidence to support your view (rather than the subjective "it looks complex so it must be designed").

I have. As have others. You have just repeated the same statement. So you seem unwilling to learn. There is no "maximum level of complexity" that can be produced by natural (non-human) causes. Mobile phones are not, in the grand scheme of things, that complex. Many naturally occurring things are more complex. The argument "that looks complex and we know it was designed and so anything complex must therefore be designed" is logically fallacious but is the entire basis of Creationism/ID.

No. It's nonsense. You do a really brilliant impression of one. You should be on stage.

That is a complete non sequitur.

What evidence or logical arguments do you have to support this claim?

Really? Irony bypass? Without seeing the equations, it is hard to be sure. But it looks about right. Although you seem to be calculating the equivalent mass of a photon, and it isn't clear what the physical meaning of that is. Am I going to have to wait another month for the answers to these?

Huh? Anyway, as far as I am aware random numbers have nothing much to do with P vs NP.

The entire universe is observable (assuming that it is infinitely old). Hence Olbers' paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

That doesn't define a limit on the complexity of things that require a designer. It just says that mobile phones were designed by humans because they are useful. The human brain, for example, is far more complex and was obviously not designed. So your "logic" fails. So you are trying to separate life from "natural process" so that you can claim that natural process could not produce life. Once again, a religious argument produces a classic example of the fallacy of begging the question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Which seemed to be your original point.

Perhaps you could explain why you think that the ID proponents do not require a Designer (and/or why that Designer is not their God). The connection is pretty bloody obvious. And it is the same people involved in Creationism as ID. It is just white-washing that is intended, I believe, to get round the USA's separation of church and state.

That sounds more like P = BPP http://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/pvsnp.pdf

Available here: https://www.random.org I'm not sure I see the relevance to P vs NP, though ...

I'm not sure what bit you are having trouble with. I assume by "transition function" you mean what it decides to do in any given state? That is determined by the value on the tape, the internal state register(s) and the current instruction in the table. The table says what to do in that specific configuration (move, print a value, etc). Arbitrary values would have to be read sequentially, one digit at a time (which would be used to modify a state register). The Wikipedia description is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine And they have some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine_examples And an example of adder here: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs150/classes/class37/lecture37.pdf There are various simulated Turing Machines you can play with online, which might help you get to grips with it. For example: http://morphett.info/turing/turing.html https://turingmachinesimulator.com http://www.turing.org.uk/book/update/tmjavar.html

Unfortunately, in the real world there is no such correlation. I am afraid that I never studied very hard and, as a result, have almost no formal qualifications. But I get paid rather well!

Thanks. It has only taken 3 weeks and 20+ posts to answer a simple question. The usual symbol is m, not M. But that means these objects are tiny. I doubt any radiation from them could be detected. How do you propose this radiation is generated, anyway? And why would objects have sizes that are a multiple of pi in arbitrary man-made units?

That isn't what happens. I'm not really sure where your misunderstanding is. The expansion of space between us and a distant galaxy means that light takes longer to reach us than it would if there were no expansion. At some point that "takes longer" becomes never. It has nothing to do with things travelling faster than c. Photons never go backwards. (1) Nothing can travel faster than c. (2) We can observer galaxies that are receding faster than c.