There's not enough time in the world for mutations to create new proteins

a reply to: cooperton

It's futile to try to reason with non believers.

The universe sprang from nothing because it had to.

Which means the laws of physics don't actually exist.

Which means science is a lie.

Which means science is lying about the universe springing from nothing all by itself.

originally posted by: cooperton

... It is not repeatable in a lab...

Wouldn't that be creation?

God creates man, man becomes god.

originally posted by: rounda
a reply to: cooperton

It's futile to try to reason with non believers.

The universe sprang from nothing because it had to.

Which means the laws of physics don't actually exist.

Which means science is a lie.

Which means science is lying about the universe springing from nothing all by itself.

I am neither a believer nor a non-believer, I just don't know the truth and blind faith is not my way of living life.

originally posted by: quintessentone

I am neither a believer nor a non-believer, I just don't know the truth and blind faith is not my way of living life.

I have seen a few things and read too much quantum physics to not believe. Christ's philosophy is the archetypal psyche

originally posted by: TerraLiga

"It is not repeatable in a lab"
Wouldn't that be creation?

God creates man, man becomes god.

Evolution is supposed to be science-based, so it should be repeatable in a lab.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone

I am neither a believer nor a non-believer, I just don't know the truth and blind faith is not my way of living life.

I have seen a few things and read too much quantum physics to not believe. Christ's philosophy is the archetypal psyche

originally posted by: TerraLiga

"It is not repeatable in a lab"
Wouldn't that be creation?

God creates man, man becomes god.

Evolution is supposed to be science-based, so it should be repeatable in a lab.

I am not surprised we haven't found new science or new physics to explain observable realities or 'spooky action at a distance' when we humans, especially biased in religious beliefs, will conduct studies/experiments to confirm those bias'.

originally posted by: quintessentone

I am not surprised we haven't found new science or new physics to explain observable realities or 'spooky action at a distance' when we humans, especially biased in religious beliefs, will conduct studies/experiments to confirm those bias'.

It works in the reverse as well, many want to take an intelligent designer out of the equation entirely.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone

I am not surprised we haven't found new science or new physics to explain observable realities or 'spooky action at a distance' when we humans, especially biased in religious beliefs, will conduct studies/experiments to confirm those bias'.

It works in the reverse as well, many want to take an intelligent designer out of the equation entirely.

We can't observe what we don't want to see or acknowledge.

originally posted by: quintessentone

We can't observe what we don't want to see or acknowledge.

That's how people ignore soft tissue in dinosaur bones, human footprint in the same strata as dinosaurs, carbon dating dinosaurs to less than 40,000 years old, depictions of dinosaurs, upright trees in the geological strata, geological layers are able to form quickly, etc, etc.

I legitimately went into the pursuit of science objectively, and was ready to concede to wherever the empirical data led me. Evolution is not a feasible theory.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone

We can't observe what we don't want to see or acknowledge.

That's how people ignore soft tissue in dinosaur bones, human footprint in the same strata as dinosaurs, carbon dating dinosaurs to less than 40,000 years old, depictions of dinosaurs, upright trees in the geological strata, geological layers are able to form quickly, etc, etc.

I legitimately went into the pursuit of science objectively, and was ready to concede to wherever the empirical data led me. Evolution is not a feasible theory.

You were fooled by hoaxes, I'm afraid. Just as you were in whatever religion you subscribe to.

originally posted by: cooperton
Evolution is supposed to be science-based, so it should be repeatable in a lab.

Billions of years are not able to be reproduced in any lab. It's like putting two rocks together on a desk and saying tectonic activity is a hoax because they've been in the same position all week.

originally posted by: rounda
a reply to: cooperton

It's futile to try to reason with non believers.

The universe sprang from nothing because it had to.

Which means the laws of physics don't actually exist.

Which means science is a lie.

Which means science is lying about the universe springing from nothing all by itself.

There is no proof the universe sprang from nothing, it is an assumption rooted in the fact that the universe is expanding. It could constantly expand and contract, or maybe it has always been at bursting point until 14bn years ago. Nobody knows. We have a heat map and an accelerating expansion rate, that's all.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

You were fooled by hoaxes, I'm afraid. Just as you were in whatever religion you subscribe to.

You were fooled by a hoax

Billions of years are not able to be reproduced in any lab.

Convenient for the hoax of evolutionary theory.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga

You were fooled by hoaxes, I'm afraid. Just as you were in whatever religion you subscribe to.

You were fooled by a hoax

Billions of years are not able to be reproduced in any lab.

Convenient for the hoax of evolutionary theory.

originally posted by: quintessentone

Interesting share thanks. Yeah I really do think evolutionary theory has trashed science's ability to look into other means of origins. Look at atoms, they're mostly empty space. I like to think of them as little projectors in this sense, where theyre projecting an electromagnetic repulsion (the electron cloud) to give matter it's impassability and our material interfact with solid objects. Quantum physics shows that we as conscious beings are effectors of these systems.

I do think the answer is a union of God and science, but we gotta get past these obsolete notions of matter creating consciousness (evolution). We are trying so hard to fit the square peg into the round hole for nothing! I think the main reason it perpetuates, is like the guy said in the video, they can't say it's wrong because then the theists will jump all over it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone

Interesting share thanks. Yeah I really do think evolutionary theory has trashed science's ability to look into other means of origins. Look at atoms, they're mostly empty space. I like to think of them as little projectors in this sense, where theyre projecting an electromagnetic repulsion (the electron cloud) to give matter it's impassability and our material interfact with solid objects. Quantum physics shows that we as conscious beings are effectors of these systems.

I do think the answer is a union of God and science, but we gotta get past these obsolete notions of matter creating consciousness (evolution). We are trying so hard to fit the square peg into the round hole for nothing! I think the main reason it perpetuates, is like the guy said in the video, they can't say it's wrong because then the theists will jump all over it.

Maybe the answer lies in finding out what is consciousness within the quantum world and why we as the observer can effect changes by just being there observing (?)

originally posted by: quintessentone

Maybe the answer lies in finding out what is consciousness within the quantum world and why we as the observer can effect changes by just being there observing (?)

This is why I think matter came from consciousness. Matter is the interface for consciousness to have its existence. We are children of the primordial always-existent consciousness. According to my own beliefs

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone

Maybe the answer lies in finding out what is consciousness within the quantum world and why we as the observer can effect changes by just being there observing (?)

This is why I think matter came from consciousness. Matter is the interface for consciousness to have its existence. We are children of the primordial always-existent consciousness. According to my own beliefs

I can believe in that, but how can it be studied in a repeatable and empirical manner? Certainly we never will be able to using our existing 'stay in the box' science.

Conscious thought and self-recognition is believed to be very recent - within 1mn years. Considering what we would classify as life has been on our planet for approx 4bn years, consciousness, geologically-speaking, only happened yesterday.

Apart from using 5000 year old religious texts for reference, creationists only see the here and now and ask how this could be if not by design, conveniently ignoring 99.9999% of all life before it that brought us here.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Conscious thought and self-recognition is believed to be very recent - within 1mn years. Considering what we would classify as life has been on our planet for approx 4bn years, consciousness, geologically-speaking, only happened yesterday.

Apart from using 5000 year old religious texts for reference, creationists only see the here and now and ask how this could be if not by design, conveniently ignoring 99.9999% of all life before it that brought us here.

What if we had varying rudimentary forms of consciousness while evolving to a more sophisticated state?

One example is stated in an article from The Economist that mentions the behavior of a chimpanzee in Furuvik zoo of Sweden, Santino. In the 2000s, zookeepers noticed that he was gathering little stockpiles of stones and hiding around his cage, even constructing covers for them. Later they found out that Santino did this so that he would have something to throw at zoo visitors, which annoyed him. From this incident, it is argued that Santino's behavior showed various types of mental sophistication, whereas Santino could remember a specific event in the past, which annoyed by some visitors, and finally proceed by preparing for an event in the future, which would be in a form like throwing stones at them.

Another example would be something that may correlate with animals' feelings and mental experiences. As we know, animals indeed show emotions such as fear. But, this can be taken to be instinctual, just like the way we cry out in pain. However, there are several observations of animals going out of their way to help creatures, which may show how animals can have feelings and empathy.

www.cxomedia.id...#:~:text=Non%20human%20animals%2C%20including%20all,enough% 20to%20support%20conscious%20experiences.

originally posted by: strongfp

You can make up whatever numbers you want about the chance or the odds of something happening, but get this...it did happen.

When Coop says 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
...000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 I wonder if his pinky is in the corner of his mouth.