Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Prove what you've just written. I'd like to see the evidence for a universal conscience, a proof of a design for all organic matter, proof of a plan or scheme for life that excludes almost all of the rest of the universe.

So your only defense of evolution is to criticize other ideas? Not good.

Intelligible mathematically predictable laws show that there was something intelligent to implement the system. Laws can't come to be without intelligence, as shown by our own court of laws. But this thread is about evolution. Not to mention evolution is supposed to be a science, which would require proof. Show proof that a population of organisms can gradually evolve into a distinctly new organism

Hypocrite. I'm laughing that you can say this honestly with a straight face. You're a joke.

And comparing natural laws with legal laws? Are you serious? You don't know what science is at all.

a reply to: cooperton

Blind atheism is another coping mechanism. If you can't defend your beliefs, why do you believe it?

I'm still waiting for your explanation further detailing this "ultimate higher purpose". While you're at it, maybe you can also explain how atheism is supposed to resemble a coping tool.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: TzarChasm

by all means you can not proof counsciussnes can`t exist outside of matter, as you pointed out it is actually questionable to try and proof it at all.
you can however proof that matter could only be conscious if the physical conditions are given to experience consciousness, under this conditions I could agree with your given timeline. maybe we can term it self consciouss matter?

But when i think about it, my head always wanders to the god helmet experiment.
apparently spoken thoughts and emotions can be induced through electromagnetic fields. Which indicates that the information our brain processes can also come from a foreign source or exist independently, anything that emits electromagnetic fields could be regarded as a foreign consciousness.

It's questionable to try and prove the existence of consciousness at all, regardless of where it originates or how it functions.

Still not relevant to the chemistry or physics of evolution.

originally posted by: TzarChasm


It's questionable to try and prove the existence of consciousness at all

Ahh yes, "I think therefore I am not". you, a conscious agent, are questioning whether consciousness exists, yet believe whole-heartedly that your great grandfather was a microbe?

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Hypocrite. I'm laughing that you can say this honestly with a straight face. You're a joke.

Then show an example of a population of organisms gradually changing into something distinctly new.

And comparing natural laws with legal laws? Are you serious? You don't know what science is at all.

Natural laws are even more well-refined and unbreakable than human laws. That's because they were made by an intelligence that's better than human.

a reply to: cooperton

Refer to my previous post addressed to you. Not the one you opted to answer instead because it was easier to scorn.

While you are scraping your brain for a good answer to my previous questions, here's a list for you to chew on for inspiration: fossil records, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and molecular biology. These are a handful of specialized fields that study data relevant to evolution and have collectively assembled the theory as we know it today.

originally posted by: cooperton

Ahh yes, "I think therefore I am not". you, a conscious agent, are questioning whether consciousness exists, yet believe whole-heartedly that your great grandfather was a microbe?

But just how real is it? How real are the Star Wars movies, as example... What happens to your reality and conscious when your chemicals get slightly out of balance, or you drop some acid? It is not a stable state to say the least...

originally posted by: cooperton
Then show an example of a population of organisms gradually changing into something distinctly new.

Every organic structure on this planet are my examples. They all started as something distinctly different to what they are now. The proof is in their genomes, if you care to have a look.

Your turn. Show me an example of going to heaven when you die.

a reply to: TzarChasm

That is if you want to ignore all the proof that we however have an influence on water.
This indicates that physical reality is influenced by conscious matter.

Assuming consciousness can exist outside of matter how can you dismiss the notion that the physical evolution could be influenced by consciousness?

a reply to: cooperton

As a scientist I can't just accept these dates based on blind faith

LMAO

a reply to: TzarChasm

fossil records, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and molecular biology

Maybe you could sum these topics up for us

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

As a scientist I can't just accept these dates based on blind faith

LMAO

Thus far Cooperton has refused to provide a detailed explanation of "ultimate higher purpose", a concrete measurement of any "extra dimensional consciousness" supposedly interacting with our world, and proof of consciousness preceding matter. We just have to assume he's correct on all these points without a single shred of verifiable evidence.

And yet evolution is the reason we are here scratching our heads in confusion.

LMAO indeed.

a reply to: TzarChasm

the right question to ask one self is do I see the theorie in question as contradictory to mine... if yes any disscussion is obsolete...

oftentimes when both parties try to understand where the other is coming from and respecting that position overlapping fields can be found but it needs the capabilities of both to see beyond ones own reality...

it is no proof of a superior argument trying to ridicule and intimidate with obvious tactics, quite the opposite...

Religion and science have been in conflict for centuries. The two ideas contradict at the most fundamental level and, I assure you, there will be ridicule and argument for many years to come - especially when creation and science meet. The lunatic fringe are not dead yet. Not quite.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Really doesn't matter what the subject of the thread is. He never answers questions, never presents hard evidence, doesn't have a clue as to what the real science says. It's textbook crackpot science.

a reply to: Terpene

Creationism isn't a theory, and attempting to discredit evolution doesn't change that fact.

originally posted by: TerraLiga


Every organic structure on this planet are my examples. They all started as something distinctly different to what they are now.

That's your belief. We've never observed it in a lab with over 100 years of trying. You all have strong faith, it's a shame it's in a theory with no meaning

originally posted by: TerraLiga
. The lunatic fringe are not dead yet. Not quite.

Lol relax Stalin, you had your chance and your ideology doesn't work.

originally posted by: TzarChasm


Thus far Cooperton has refused to provide a detailed explanation of "ultimate higher purpose

That's not what the threads about. You bring up my religion because you can't defend your own. Show an example of a population of organisms evolving into something distinctly new

a reply to: cooperton

Why won't you answer the question? You accuse evolution of being a nihilists wet dream but you won't explain how creationism gives us purpose? That's the whole reason you hate evolution because you think it robs us of...some amorphous destiny that you won't go into detail about.

a reply to: cooperton

Show an example of a population of organisms evolving into something distinctly new

And for the 10,000th time, please cite a textbook or a research article that confirms your description of evolution i.e. that dog turns into a cat, a mouse turns into dinosaur or a gopher turns into a pig.

Same old mantra. Same old crap. Rinse and repeat. And you don't even rinse!!

a reply to: cooperton

Correction to your ignorance:

If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

a reply to: cooperton

One more for the road - one that you repeat ad nauseaum:

Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable” (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence “TOBEORNOTTOBE.” A million hypothetical monkeys, each typing out one phrase a second on a keyboard, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison, then at Glendale College, wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.