Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
Juan: "This was not a semantic game by any means." Generally ... not *always* of course, but generally ... an accusation of playing semntic gmes is leveled when one person is attempting to clarify the issue and the other person's "argument" depends upon just that lack of clarity.
Ilíon, Thanks for the reply, I think you are right in this case. Nevertheless, I have to confess, after getting my wife's input on this, that many times I have problems trying to communicate what I mean.:) -- modified at 13:43 Tuesday 20th February, 2007
Juanfer
-
juanfer68 wrote:
If it is found that Cf = f(A,B), a rational conclusion should be that Ct = f(A,B).
entirely false. we can make diamonds. does that mean all diamonds require intelligence and purpose? of course not.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Yes, it does. They require the sovereign direction of the Creator who achieves diversity from the same material components under the same conditions (check of the list items in my original post). Now, you have to account for your assumption that intelligence was NOT required to achieve this diversity. Please note that Fitscuffs honestly recognized this, among the cited problems in my post, as a problem that science has not been able to answer.
Juanfer
-
Let me ask you a question. Why does creationism have to disclude evolutionism? Why wouldn't a creator in eternity... think boredom here... not engineer a system that would evolve into dynamic arrangements providing unexpected surprises throughout an otherwise predictable existence. Give me a break. This argument is lame. Science is the best friend of religion, but the organized folks are too hung up in the battle to see it. You're blinded by your own illusions. The bible is a parable. For social guidance. Not a scientific explanation of the universe, and its targeted to the people of its time. People were much simpler in their understanding of reality so that's what they got. Answer me this. Which would hold greater value; a puppet show where everything is controlled or manipulated, or a dynamic system to interact with that may discover you in return? What a delight, to allow entities to evolve from a birth in darkness to arrive at illumination and to walk therein. You are showing your own lack in evolving with your line of reasoning. You simplify the creator as a puppet master. I take offense to that.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser: "Why does creationism have to disclude evolutionism?" 'Creationism' doesn't have disclude 'evolution' -- and, after all, etymologically speaking, the word 'evolution' presupposes a Creator. *However* 'evolutionism' and 'creationism' refer to mutually exclusive "explanations" of mutually exclusive world-views. Therefore, being mutually exclusive, they must each disclude the other.
-
Juan: "Here it is: Remove God and you remove the only valid explanation for logic and any other concept of law whatsoever. Now, if you ever come up with a better account for their existence without begging the question, I would be eager to know what it is." In fact, it's much worse than that. The problem for 'atheism' isn't merely that in denying God one no longer has a "valid explanation for logic and any other concept of law whatsoever." If that were the whole of the problem it would be merely problematic but not fatal. The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists.
Ilíon wrote:
The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false
like i said: semantic games. they're like crack to you guys.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Yes, it does. They require the sovereign direction of the Creator who achieves diversity from the same material components under the same conditions (check of the list items in my original post). Now, you have to account for your assumption that intelligence was NOT required to achieve this diversity. Please note that Fitscuffs honestly recognized this, among the cited problems in my post, as a problem that science has not been able to answer.
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
They require the sovereign direction of the Creator who achieves diversity from the same material components under the same conditions
wow! look at them goalposts run! (under divine influence, i'm sure)
juanfer68 wrote:
you have to account for your assumption that intelligence was NOT required to achieve this diversity
carbon + high pressure + high temperature = diamond no intelligence required.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Chris, Let's go step by step to see if I can make myself clear: You said: "no, we haven't yet created a new species ourselves ... but someday we will". Now, I assume that you assume that, by "someday we will" you mean that we won't just be sitting waiting for those species to pop-up into existence, but apply our "will" (our own intelligence and purpose) to achieve that goal. Now, if that is not what you meant, then I misunderstood and you don't need to continue reading. In my response, I am talking about "then", meaning, in that future, when those new species get created through the application of our will. That day, we will have to look back to the past (meaning today), and answer where was and who applied that "will", when we had not yet been able to create those species. Easier: A = components and conditions B = Intelligence and purpose Cf = Species in the future Ct = Species today If it is found that Cf = f(A,B), a rational conclusion should be that Ct = f(A,B). How do we arrive to the conclusion that Ct = f(A)? Please let me know if this is not clear yet.
Juanfer
The definition of a new species is a very human task as it is simply a label we hang on groups of animals to identify them. Defining what makes a new species is a common activity of high school teachers. It usually boils down to, "two populations of related animals that do not interbreed." However, if we stuck with this definition, many animals we consider to be of the same species would be separate: the transient and resident schools of Killer Whales, for instance, or salmon that breed on different years. The species we put something into is a little like the way people classify music. I may call one band "Industrial", while someone else may call them "Metal" and a third may just call it "That Damn Racket". The way we identify animals depends on our best available knowledge at the time, and may change as we learn more. For example, the Polar bear was Thalarctos maritimus when I first learned their scientific name, but are now identified as Ursus maritumus as we learned they are genetically closer to bears than initially thought (Polar-grizzly hybrids have been found). Having said that, we have observed a few incidents of speciation events. One classic example[^] are the Gulls of the Northern hemisphere. These form a chain of populations that can interbreed with one another, but at the "ends" of the chain, the two populations cannot interbreed.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Chris-Kaiser: "Why does creationism have to disclude evolutionism?" 'Creationism' doesn't have disclude 'evolution' -- and, after all, etymologically speaking, the word 'evolution' presupposes a Creator. *However* 'evolutionism' and 'creationism' refer to mutually exclusive "explanations" of mutually exclusive world-views. Therefore, being mutually exclusive, they must each disclude the other.
Ilíon wrote:
etymologically speaking, the word 'evolution' presupposes a Creator
Uhm. From Etymology online[^] L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" In case you think I'm only picking one source that follows my thought, here's Merriam Webster[^]: Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Ilíon wrote:
The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false
like i said: semantic games. they're like crack to you guys.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Wow! You found us out! Now, how 'bout if I point out that irrationality and illogic iare like candy to you guys. Are we all happy now? Nonetheless, let it be pointed out and understood that calling what I'd written a "semantic game" does not make it untrue and certainly doesn't even attempt to show it to be false. But then, to attempt show it false would necessitate engaging in logical reasoning (along with necessitating the use of "semantics").
-
Wow! You found us out! Now, how 'bout if I point out that irrationality and illogic iare like candy to you guys. Are we all happy now? Nonetheless, let it be pointed out and understood that calling what I'd written a "semantic game" does not make it untrue and certainly doesn't even attempt to show it to be false. But then, to attempt show it false would necessitate engaging in logical reasoning (along with necessitating the use of "semantics").
Ilíon wrote:
Now, how 'bout if I point out that irrationality and illogic iare like candy to you guys.
:(( now you've gone and made me sad
Ilíon wrote:
Nonetheless, let it be pointed out and understood that calling what I'd written a "semantic game" does not make it untrue and certainly doesn't even attempt to show it to be false.
according to what you wrote, i cannot show what you wrote to be either true or false - somehow, as an atheist, i've denied myself the ability to use logic. and i know this must be true, because your dogma claims for itself sole ownership of logic. and that's all perfectly logical. perfectly.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Ilíon wrote:
etymologically speaking, the word 'evolution' presupposes a Creator
Uhm. From Etymology online[^] L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" In case you think I'm only picking one source that follows my thought, here's Merriam Webster[^]: Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Uhm, yourself. *THINK* here, please. To "unroll" or "unfold" is goal-directed activity; to describe the history of life as an "unrolling" or "unfolding" is to presuppose some state towards which living things are moving in this "unrolling" or "unfolding." And there cannot be a goal towards which to be directed if there is no Goal-Giver. To use the word 'evolution' as it was first used of biology (and as the word's etymology might suggest) is to imply that there is a goal or direction in the history of life. It is to presuppose a Creator (just as I said). But, of course, 'modern evolutionary theory' (aka "neo-Darwinism") adamantly denies that "evolution" (whatever that word happens to mean) has a goal.
-
Uhm, yourself. *THINK* here, please. To "unroll" or "unfold" is goal-directed activity; to describe the history of life as an "unrolling" or "unfolding" is to presuppose some state towards which living things are moving in this "unrolling" or "unfolding." And there cannot be a goal towards which to be directed if there is no Goal-Giver. To use the word 'evolution' as it was first used of biology (and as the word's etymology might suggest) is to imply that there is a goal or direction in the history of life. It is to presuppose a Creator (just as I said). But, of course, 'modern evolutionary theory' (aka "neo-Darwinism") adamantly denies that "evolution" (whatever that word happens to mean) has a goal.
Ooooo, thinking, thinking, *thinking*, *THINKING* Gosh that's hard. I don't think that Lyell would agree with your conclusions about the word. Yes, Charles Lyell was the coiner of that word. He used it to describe what he saw of the geological strata in terms of unrolling the layers of rock. The "goal" if there is one would be in exploring older rocks, not what you seem to be aiming for. Darwin only later reused the word.
Ilíon wrote:
But, of course, 'modern evolutionary theory' (aka "neo-Darwinism") adamantly denies that "evolution" (whatever that word happens to mean) has a goal.
Yup, 100% in agreement there.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Ooooo, thinking, thinking, *thinking*, *THINKING* Gosh that's hard. I don't think that Lyell would agree with your conclusions about the word. Yes, Charles Lyell was the coiner of that word. He used it to describe what he saw of the geological strata in terms of unrolling the layers of rock. The "goal" if there is one would be in exploring older rocks, not what you seem to be aiming for. Darwin only later reused the word.
Ilíon wrote:
But, of course, 'modern evolutionary theory' (aka "neo-Darwinism") adamantly denies that "evolution" (whatever that word happens to mean) has a goal.
Yup, 100% in agreement there.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Me: "To use the word 'evolution' as it was first used of biology (and as the word's etymology might suggest) is to imply that there is a goal or direction in the history of life. It is to presuppose a Creator (just as I said)." Kent Sharkey: "I don't think that Lyell would agree with your conclusions about the word ... He used it to describe what he saw of the geological strata in terms of unrolling the layers of rock." I don't doubt that thinking may be hard indeed for persons who have preconceptions which must be defended against all reasoning to the contrary and especially if these preconceptions must be defended in the face of the very illogic of them. If you would be so kind, please allow me to point out that I said: "To use the word 'evolution' as it was first used of biology ..." and that you "disputed" that with a non-sequitur about rocks. Let's consider this quote of Douglas Futuyama reproduced on the home page of The Society for the Study of Evolution:
“Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of groups of organisms over the course of generations. ….The word evolution comes from the Latin evolvere, ‘to unfold or unroll’ — to reveal or manifest hidden potentialities.”
Now, of course, Futuyama is a current "Darwinist," rather than being the first person to refer to the history of living things as "evolution." But, the point is, that even current "Darwinists," heavily invested though they are in denying that "evolution" is goal-directed, recognize the etymological meaning of the word. Please, direct your attention to Futuyama's statement of the etymology of the word: "to reveal or manifest hidden potentialities." Or, consider this:
evolve 1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" (see vulva). Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progre
-
Me: "To use the word 'evolution' as it was first used of biology (and as the word's etymology might suggest) is to imply that there is a goal or direction in the history of life. It is to presuppose a Creator (just as I said)." Kent Sharkey: "I don't think that Lyell would agree with your conclusions about the word ... He used it to describe what he saw of the geological strata in terms of unrolling the layers of rock." I don't doubt that thinking may be hard indeed for persons who have preconceptions which must be defended against all reasoning to the contrary and especially if these preconceptions must be defended in the face of the very illogic of them. If you would be so kind, please allow me to point out that I said: "To use the word 'evolution' as it was first used of biology ..." and that you "disputed" that with a non-sequitur about rocks. Let's consider this quote of Douglas Futuyama reproduced on the home page of The Society for the Study of Evolution:
“Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of groups of organisms over the course of generations. ….The word evolution comes from the Latin evolvere, ‘to unfold or unroll’ — to reveal or manifest hidden potentialities.”
Now, of course, Futuyama is a current "Darwinist," rather than being the first person to refer to the history of living things as "evolution." But, the point is, that even current "Darwinists," heavily invested though they are in denying that "evolution" is goal-directed, recognize the etymological meaning of the word. Please, direct your attention to Futuyama's statement of the etymology of the word: "to reveal or manifest hidden potentialities." Or, consider this:
evolve 1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" (see vulva). Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progre
Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):
Ilíon wrote:
preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.
So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term. Nor does the current use of the term imply any sort of progress. Populations change over time. It's a pretty easily observed phenomenon. Populations have changed in the past. We have evidence of that. We have a theory and model that can be used to test current observations and past results. It's been beaten on fairly hard (by many "critical thinkers") for about 150 years. It stands, changed no doubt, but stands.
Ilíon wrote:
Would you like to think again? Or, perhaps you'd like to follow Chris Losinger's lead and accuse me of "playing word games?"
I'm perfectly happy to stay away from ad hominem attacks. However, I would think that arguing over the definition and use of a word would count as "word games" wouldn't it?
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Maybe I'll point out that if you were to do that you'd but demonstrate that you appear to be 'irony challanged' and appear to not have that firm a grasp on the concept of "skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence."
Maybe I'll point out that if you're going to create a fluff attack post that limply re-uses my own pithy motif, you might want to spell "challenge" correctly to really give it that "OH... SNAP!" flavor you're looking for. You could also try reading the other posts in this thread before accusing me of avoiding honest discourse. Jerk.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
Maybe I'll point out that if you're going to create a fluff attack post that limply re-uses my own pithy motif, you might want to spell "challenge" correctly to really give it that "OH... SNAP!" flavor you're looking for. You could also try reading the other posts in this thread before accusing me of avoiding honest discourse. Jerk.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
Oooo! Burn! Is that the best you can do? I use your own "logic" to show the unreasonableness of what you'd said and you "refute" it by noting that I hadn't paid enough attention to my spelling?
Ilíon wrote:
Is that the best you can do? I use your own "logic" to show the unreasonableness of what you'd said and you "refute" it by noting that I hadn't paid enough attention to my spelling?
Thanks, Internet policeman, for showing me the error of my ways! I'll never post another one-line, dismissive response to a poorly-written post on a topic that's proven itself over and over again to really not be worth debating! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHAMP! :rolleyes:
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):
Ilíon wrote:
preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.
So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term. Nor does the current use of the term imply any sort of progress. Populations change over time. It's a pretty easily observed phenomenon. Populations have changed in the past. We have evidence of that. We have a theory and model that can be used to test current observations and past results. It's been beaten on fairly hard (by many "critical thinkers") for about 150 years. It stands, changed no doubt, but stands.
Ilíon wrote:
Would you like to think again? Or, perhaps you'd like to follow Chris Losinger's lead and accuse me of "playing word games?"
I'm perfectly happy to stay away from ad hominem attacks. However, I would think that arguing over the definition and use of a word would count as "word games" wouldn't it?
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey: "Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):" [snip] Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?" (that capital 'P' is intentional and necessary to convey the nature of the belief) I'll bet you don't even know that Darwin was more a "Lamarckian" (in the modern sense of that word) than Lamarck himself was (but then, modern-day 'modern evolutionary theorists' continue to be more "Lamarckian" than Lamarck himself was). The truth is, this snippet incorrectly imputes certain aspects of current-day 'modern evolutionary theory' to Darwin. Kent Sharkey: "So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term." Now, aside from the fact that Darwin *did* argue (if I can be forgiven for so misusing that word) for "progress" -- and have you ever actually read a single word of his famous tome? (see: online 6th edition of Origin) -- apparently you want to put forward the idea that Darwin had the right all-on-his-lonesome to redefine the meaning of the word "evolution" as understood and used by everyone else so as to exclude the idea of "progress" being connected with it (which, of course, he didn't attempt to do in the first place). To give you just a glimmer of Darwin's thought on "progress," and of his "Lamarkian" predelictions, and of his mode of argumentation, consider this excerpt, from pages 176-181 (Chapter VII "MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION") of the Origin, 6th edition:
Although we have no good evidence of the existence in organic beings of an innate tendency towards progressive development, yet this necessarily follows, as I have attempted to show in the fourth chapter, through the continued action of natural selection. For the best definition which has ever been given of a high standard of organisation is the degree to which the parts have been specialised or differentiated; and natural selection tends towards this end, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to perform their functions more efficie
-
Ilíon wrote:
Is that the best you can do? I use your own "logic" to show the unreasonableness of what you'd said and you "refute" it by noting that I hadn't paid enough attention to my spelling?
Thanks, Internet policeman, for showing me the error of my ways! I'll never post another one-line, dismissive response to a poorly-written post on a topic that's proven itself over and over again to really not be worth debating! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHAMP! :rolleyes:
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
One certainly sees why some intrepid partisan thinks Mr Fisticuffs' posts worth a '5' and mine merely a '1.' For, after all, in my posts I always strive to be logically consistent; whereas, in his posts ... well, clearly, he does not. Or, perhaps it is the case that the person doing this really bizarre voting is not actually an intrepid partisan, but rather has a highly-evolved ironic sensibility. Perhaps the reader will be interested in a comparison of statements from Mr Fisticuffs: "You could also try reading the other posts in this thread before accusing me of avoiding honest discourse. Jerk." followed in his next post and compared to: "... I'll never post another one-line, dismissive response ..." Perhaps the reader will note (if he cares to read the prior posts) that *I* did not anywhere accuse Mr Fisticuffs of "avoiding honest discourse," but rather I insinuated that he may not "have that firm a grasp on the concept of "skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence."" These are, of course, two quite different matters. Perhaps the reader will note that, in fact, it is now Mr Fisticuffs himself who is accusing his own self of "avoiding honest discourse!" Perhaps the reader may be forgiven for beginning to wonder just *who* is the "Jerk." "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHAMP! :rolleyes: " At the risk of perhaps being thought too derivative, please allow me to remark that I WILL, CH*MP :omg:
-
One certainly sees why some intrepid partisan thinks Mr Fisticuffs' posts worth a '5' and mine merely a '1.' For, after all, in my posts I always strive to be logically consistent; whereas, in his posts ... well, clearly, he does not. Or, perhaps it is the case that the person doing this really bizarre voting is not actually an intrepid partisan, but rather has a highly-evolved ironic sensibility. Perhaps the reader will be interested in a comparison of statements from Mr Fisticuffs: "You could also try reading the other posts in this thread before accusing me of avoiding honest discourse. Jerk." followed in his next post and compared to: "... I'll never post another one-line, dismissive response ..." Perhaps the reader will note (if he cares to read the prior posts) that *I* did not anywhere accuse Mr Fisticuffs of "avoiding honest discourse," but rather I insinuated that he may not "have that firm a grasp on the concept of "skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence."" These are, of course, two quite different matters. Perhaps the reader will note that, in fact, it is now Mr Fisticuffs himself who is accusing his own self of "avoiding honest discourse!" Perhaps the reader may be forgiven for beginning to wonder just *who* is the "Jerk." "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHAMP! :rolleyes: " At the risk of perhaps being thought too derivative, please allow me to remark that I WILL, CH*MP :omg:
-
juanfer68 wrote:
They require the sovereign direction of the Creator who achieves diversity from the same material components under the same conditions
wow! look at them goalposts run! (under divine influence, i'm sure)
juanfer68 wrote:
you have to account for your assumption that intelligence was NOT required to achieve this diversity
carbon + high pressure + high temperature = diamond no intelligence required.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris, Thanks so much for your example of the diamond. It seems simple enough for to see the point I have been trying to make but you willfully continue to ignore. I will set aside, for the sake of brevity, the problems of uniformity vs. diversity, directed vs. natural conditions, and their conflict with the pervasive evolutionary version of our origins, to focus on the more immediate inconsistency. If you decide to follow my posts honestly, and consider the questions you have not addressed yet, you will realize that the case is really more complicated than the one you have presented to us: X = Diamond A = Carbon B = High Pressure C = High Temperature D = Laws controlling the the properties of A and the conditions of B and C E = Assumption of the continuity of nature F = Assumption of the principle of causality t = Today p = Past X(t) = f(A, B, C, D, E, F) Logical conclusion: X(p) = f(A, B, C, D, E, F) Is the conclusion X(p) = f(A, B, C) valid if we know X(t) to be true? I will be gracious enough not to ask again how you can give an account for and prove the existence of D, E and F in a random universe not controlled by God, and concede, just temporarily, that you can assume these principles. Just perform this simple test: Take the presentation of the problem in the form above to any math teacher, taking also good care not to mention that this is related to the evolution/creation controversy to keep the evaluation as unbiased as possible, and see if he or she can't help but ask: why is it that you arbitrarily remove some elements from the equation? Well, maybe you think you can just safely ignore these factors because, after all, 'everybody' knows 'that'. But if this is the case, then there must be a good reason for it, right? What is it? Does the burden of proof fall on those who follow the rules of reason, or on those who decide to violate them based on the presuposition that natural processes are random? By the way, please note that this example is great to share additional information of interest for our readers. B and C are not very high today. An example includes C = 440C and B = 800 Atmospheres. What about another missing element in our equation: Time? Many people reading this post may still believe diamonds take millions of years to form, as many geologists still claim today (in random nature, of course), but it takes different companies from a few hours to a few months to complete the process today.
Juanfer