Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: Peeple

Intelligent design is childish. It comes from the mental image of an old white guy with a chemistry set somewhere detached and bored, without purpose, without need playing just because he can.
To me God is the universe and Life (metaphor ahead!) the 2d shadow in our 3d world of the 4d intelligence that is God.

I always ask the question why do we need God? It also kinds of opens up the Chicken or egg dilemma, unless God is the force of everything and so nothing to do with religion. And if it is the force of everything why does it need to be intelligent with a purpose?

We humans just do not want to think we are one of zillions of lifeforms that happen to come along. We are special...

originally posted by: Peeple


Are you kidding me? You constantly come at me with false accusations and politics crap and you think it's my fault that I think you're annoying and stupid?
lol no.

Says the person who claims to believe in her own god but does not believe in "intelligent design."

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Says the person who claims to believe in her own god but does not believe in "intelligent design."

The biggest issue is intelligent design is not needed, humans are a species like so many before and in the future that would be a blink in the universe eye we are gone like ALL other species. Life is everywhere most likely, but species come and go all the time, humans are no different.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well to me it appears the universe runs on information so the pinnacle of everything has to be a kind of intelligence.
But that's at this point personal taste.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES

The Garden of Eden might have been a story of our incarnation on a different Universe entirely with different laws before our "fall" into the current paradigm.

I don't know of course, I'm just speculating.

How's this. The garden of Eden is the story of the evolution of man. While in the garden we were like other anamals where there is no good or evil in the animal world, just survival, and at some point we gain enough intelligence to become self-aware and so that basically kicked us out of the garden for good.

It is because of the glory with which they were clothed that they were not ashamed. When it was taken away from them—after they had violated the commandment—they were indeed ashamed, because they were now naked.

This is self-awareness...

originally posted by: Peeple

Well to me it appears the universe runs on information so the pinnacle of everything has to be a kind of intelligence.
But that's at this point personal taste.

The universe runs on laws and rules... there could be infinite universes out there with infinite rules and laws, ours just happens to be as it is. Universes could blink into and out all the time, as to what we describe as universe. We have no comprehension of infinite, no time etc., because out universe has both and so those are very complexing things for us to ponder. I mean what is a singularity, really?

a reply to: Xtrozero

"The universe runs on laws and rules..." I would say is organized by laws and rules. But before that can happen you need 'things' that need organizing and rules to interact.
So first step is a sort of membrane like the Higgs Field that collects information.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Because primordial ooze does not turn into a human therefore trillions of simultaneous mutations aren't required.

That is kind of the whole point of evolution in that it describes the mechanism by which different forms of life appear without one spontaneously turning into another completely different one.

Ah, so you agree that the theory of all life on earth evolving from the primordial ooze is impossible...

No because that isnt what you claimed in the posts I relied to.

Ooze does not turn into humans (your claim) so evolution does not require trillions of simultaneous
changes.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I am not seeking gain for myself, I just prefer to be honest about it wherever I encounter (religious or philosophical) propaganda (including when I spot those affected by it, I feel they have a right to know the truth about it, no matter if they are wlling to deal with the reality of the situation, at least they get a fair chance to look into it themselves rather than for example believing whatever they've been told about the fossil record by those they trusted to give them accurate honest information and science/knowledge about it). Especially when it's sold under the marketingbanner "Science".

I do rejoice with (telling) the truth about it then (see ending of my signature). It feels good, the right thing to do. But that's not my motive (more of a side effect).

I do the same thing on the philosophy and religion&theology forums.

I think you are already familiar with my opinion that evolutionary philosophies are rooted in pagan religious philosophies? For those who aren't familiar with that history and background of evolutionary philosophies and unverified stories (many of which have been shown by the evidence to be false stories/myths):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

And for some examples of those evolutionary stories that have already been shown by the evidence (from the sciences by means of observation and experimentation) to be myths:

Evolution—Myths and Facts

Coming back to what I said about "wherever I encounter (religious or philosophical) propaganda". It is more likely I will make a comment about it on ATS depending on how succesful the propaganda (and marketing) has been. Evolutionary propaganda has been very succesful in gaining converts from human society. Because of the earlier mentioned marketinglabel or banner (also used for M-theory, string theory, the idea of a multiverse and cyclic universe theory which have a background in Hinduism and Eastern philosophy, and more).

originally posted by: Peeple

"The universe runs on laws and rules..." I would say is organized by laws and rules. But before that can happen you need 'things' that need organizing and rules to interact.
So first step is a sort of membrane like the Higgs Field that collects information.

You don't need things, you don't need anything...

So the sh!t can just be random and we have what we have in an infinite sea of possibilities.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well possibilities are 'things of information' too. And with nothing organisation is pretty pointless isn't it?

originally posted by: Peeple

Well possibilities are 'things of information' too. And with nothing organisation is pretty pointless isn't it?

Who says anything needs a point to it, OK we do...

Have you noticed all of this is a human construct we pulled out of our own minds. Even the term life is one, but to the universe it is just a complex chemical process. We are the ones to make it special and humans are so very very special in our view.

Gravity is a constant in our universe that is (6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2). If it was off just a smidgen we would not be here, SO that means intelligent design!!! Or maybe there are infinite universes with infinite gravity constants. The problem is everything about this subject is a human thought we created.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I believe it was Terrance McKenna that stated our "fall" (i.e. conscious evolution) came with the ingestion of certian fungi which opened previously dormant centers of the primitive brain and opened them up to "new awareness".

The fungi being allegorical to the Tree of Knowledge.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The biggest issue is intelligent design is not needed, humans are a species like so many before and in the future that would be a blink in the universe eye we are gone like ALL other species. Life is everywhere most likely, but species come and go all the time, humans are no different.

Yet entangled particles, including photons, have a link even when separated, and no matter how far apart that allows each separated entangled particle to know what happens to the other and acts accordingly. For this to happen there must be communication between the two separated and previously entangled particles. Since particles have no brains then they must have a connection with a higher intelligence which could only be God/Elohim. For communication to occur there must be intelligence, and since this happens to all entangled particles whether matter or energy particles it seems to point to a higher intelligence being behind this phenomenon.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The problem is everything about this subject is a human thought we created.

Human tought might be much closer to being the solution than the problem. Maybe invert the flow of information and watch what happens...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yet something most people don't know is that Lemaître's idea of The Big Bang is a Catholic concept of creation. Hannes Alfvén was present when Lemaître formulated the idea of the Big Bang, or Creatio Ex Nihilo/Creation out of nothing. But Hannes thought that the universe is infinite and he didn't even give a second thought to the Big Bang, or the fact that the Big Bang could just be a phase/cycle over an infinite cycle of beginnings and ends.

Hannes thought that religion and science have to be separated, but they don't really need to. After all God/Elohim is eternal and there is a piece of him in everything he created. So like God/Elohim, his creation is eternal but goes through many phases/cycles. Beginnings and ends.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: tanstaafl

It's not one species transforming into another. It's developments with junctions where a foundation is laid and 'the branch of the tree' diverges.

Has anyone ever noticed that in evolutionary diagrams* the "junctions" often have no name shown there, or only a generic name that classes a whole group of different kinds of organisms together? It also often means that there are no specific fossils related to the junction drawn, or all along the line drawn from one specifically named organism to another. Regarding the junctions, terms like "last unknown common ancestor (LUCA)" begin showing up in accompanying literature and publications. The video at the end of this comment uses the term "missing".

*: which lately don't resemble trees all that much anymore, but that's another story involving putting organisms on sidelines because of a lack of evidence of being part of a specific transition between 2 other kinds of organisms. Not even something they can at least sell as supposed "evidence", as tried earlier for ambolucetus in the whale evolution storyline, then abandoned and put on a sideline rather than in between sinonyx and rhodocetus as supposed evidence for the whale evolution storyline as a transitional fossil. See whale evolution video from earlier.

Here's an older version of the everchanging 'tree of life' (a term from ancient Eastern Philosophy that Darwin and others copied):

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm

...

Coming back to what I said about "wherever I encounter (religious or philosophical) propaganda". It is more likely I will make a comment about it on ATS depending on how succesful the propaganda (and marketing) has been. Evolutionary propaganda has been very succesful in gaining converts from human society. Because of the earlier mentioned marketinglabel or banner (also used for M-theory, string theory, the idea of a multiverse and cyclic universe theory which have a background in Hinduism and Eastern philosophy, and more).

And the accompanying rise in scientism, another religion in itself. Come to think of it, its victims and leading figures ("teachers"; 2 Tim 4:3,4) differ not much in behaviour and style of reasoning than the victims and leading figures of the Church of Scientology. Just a heads-up for those affected by scientism, not intended to deride, if that's the right word (or something like that).

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines scientism as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.”

... as modern science was born in the 17th century, ... . Spectacular scientific breakthroughs enveloped science in a halo of infallibility and authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself, a sacred cow.

Source: Part 19—17th to 19th century—Christendom Grapples With World Change (Awake!—1989)

...

Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?

... “Science is self-​correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-​policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”

But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

...

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. ...

Source: Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)

Isaac Asimov is a leading figure in both promoting and demonstrating* scientism and apparently, seeing that quote above, the “high-octane gall” New Scientist magazine was talking about. *: demonstrating Webster's definition, promoting the envelopment of (pseudo-)“science in a halo of infallibility and authority” (both actual science and pseudoscience, i.e. unverified philosophies proposed or claimed as fact or science by those seen as "scientists", making no distinction).

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yet entangled particles, including photons, have a link even when separated, and no matter how far apart that allows each separated entangled particle to know what happens to the other and acts accordingly.

Particles don't need to 'know' anything. If we connect two items and make an alteration to one that affects the other, said items don't need to know. It's just a consequence of a change of circumstance.

For this to happen there must be communication between the two separated and previously entangled particles. Since particles have no brains then they must have a connection

Let me stop you there because that makes sense although your use of the word 'communication' is misleading. In fact if you replace it with 'connection' you wouldn't have needed the second sentence. Or indeed the following nonsense.

with a higher intelligence which could only be God/Elohim. For communication to occur there must be intelligence, and since this happens to all entangled particles whether matter or energy particles it seems to point to a higher intelligence being behind this phenomenon.

It doesn't follow that because we don't understand how entangled particles are connected that intelligence is involved. They aren't 'communicating' in the way you claim and make absolutely no case for intelligence, God or whatever.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
Ooze does not turn into humans (your claim)

I never made that exact claim.

What I said was:

"... one species magically transforming into a totally different species - let alone a microbe magically turning into a land mammal."

I guess one could interpret that to mean what you attempted to twist it into, but only if you failed to read my entire post, wherein I clarified:

"... while these supposed species alterations occur via a series of random mutations, said mutations would have to involve a whole lot of the exact same mutations in a large percentage of said species at the exact same time, AND these members would have to get together and reproduce in order to reinforce the mutations to an extent that said changes would continue, AND this process would have to repeat countless times, over millions of years."

so evolution does not require trillions of simultaneous changes.

This is where your argument goes totally off the rails.

Trillions of simultaneous identical changes is absolutely required in order for said changes to be propagated via species reproduction, which is precisely the way the theory of evolution works.

If you claim otherwise, then by all means, speak, but speak with precision, and state your claim plainly and clearly..