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

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
Most species have more than one offspring.

Those offspring have offspring.

Maybe. Or maybe their offspring are eaten by predators.

If the gene was passed on twice each generation it only takes 10 generations to reach a thousand new carriers of the mutaions, in twenty genrstioms its a million.

No need for simultaneous mutaions.

Again... that is such a huuuuuuge stretch as to be almost an impossibility.

But by all means, believe what you want. I'm tired of debating something as meaningless as this actually is.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
Most species have more than one offspring.

Those offspring have offspring.

Maybe. Or maybe their offspring are eaten by predators.

If the gene was passed on twice each generation it only takes 10 generations to reach a thousand new carriers of the mutaions, in twenty genrstioms its a million.

No need for simultaneous mutaions.

Again... that is such a huuuuuuge stretch as to be almost an impossibility.

But by all means, believe what you want. I'm tired of debating something as meaningless as this actually is.

An average of 2 reaching sexual maturity and reproducing. That doesn't seem a large stretch at all.

originally posted by: karl 12
Basically who gives a f•ck, whilst everyone's arguing about insoluble questions, other people are stealing the global commons and enslaving everybody (literally).

You're right.

What's the plan to end our servitude?

a reply to: iamthevirus

Hey I consider myself a pretty well rounded individual mate - one that's gone around the block again and again.

Funding of science is always a concern, as is the active agenda for omittance.

I suppose when it comes to the truly important stuff then the Idea that 'science is objective' is a fairy tale they just tell the kids.

a reply to: cooperton

Don't let them stop you using cash .

There's a big list somewhere, I'll dig it up.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

So, it's incredulity? It's too complex or incomplete for you to understand so you don't believe it? But a mystical god is a flawless theory?

Not sure what part of my comment you are responding to, the main issue that I described that I had with presenting naturalistic storylines concerning the origin of life as "scientific" was when the following occurs in the background:

I can tell you right away that I have issues with considering only a naturalistic origin as "scientific". It's circular reasoning.

“Any science of the past . . . that excludes the possibility of design or creation a priori ceases to be a search for the truth, and becomes the servant (or slave) of a problematical philosophical doctrine, namely, naturalism.”—Origins Research.

Are you responding to something in the quotations? Probably not the bolded parts.

Anyway, you seem to want to fit my commentary into some pre-arranged strawman path of arguments. Not sure why you brought up incredulity in relation to my response to the question as to what issues I have with naturalistic stories for the origin of life*, such as when they are thought of as being "scientific" (explanations). The issue I started with. (*: as I interpreted your question after explaining why I didn't agree with your chosen terminology in the question, seeing that your question was not really about "the scientific origin of life on Earth", it looks now that you were thinking of the large variety of sometimes conflicting "naturalistic stories for the origin of life")

I don't find the proposed naturalistic storylines to be too complex to understand, they are definitely too incomplete, vague and speculative to be viewed as "scientific" though. But understanding is not the issue. I do not believe them to be either plausible, or possible because of my understanding and knowledge of the most relevant facts in biology and (bio)chemistry that demonstrate the proposed storylines to be impossibilities in regards to how the forces of nature and chance events work currently. I also see no use for even more speculations about the forces of nature operating differently in the past (i.e. the relevant chemistry working differently). I have seen that Newton's methodology (edited into my previous comment) has had great results in making accurate scientific discoveries, so I stick with that (especially when evaluating what is "scientific", science, or not). As per the following pattern, that no doubt Newton was quite familiar with:

“Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

a reply to: karl 12

Evolution as Weapon...

Attack!!!

Sieg Heil

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

Absolutely nobody who studies this subject has ever said our universe came out of nothing. The most prevalent theory suggests the universe expanded from a very dense core of material. That core is not nothing.

The quotations are all right there in the videos and the title of Krauss' book, my description of Hawking's central claim being essentially the same as the title Krauss chose for his book is appropiate. Are you trying to play the semantics game on the way I phrased something earlier? Or the way something was phrased by someone else concerning this topic (that I said something in response to)?

Or is this just the effect of the misleading use of the word "nothing" by these people, where 'nothing = not nothing' (at least in some of their lines of argumentation, then on another occasion, it's "literally nothing", quoting Dawkins in conversation with Krauss from the middle video)?

I hope it's not this:

Lies, Lies!

Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies.

I'd rather see it as an effect of this:

Propaganda encourages this by ... capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

Although there really shouldn't be any ambiguity about the word "nothing", it's a fabricated ambiguity to market (or 'sell') a naturalistic storyline. It's one of the most simple words to understand and how to use appropiately, so why are they using it inappropiately, i.e. misusing it in a misleading manner? Surely all 3 people mentioned are aware that they are doing so (as explained in the first 2 videos)? The misuse of the word "nothing" is so blatant, that it begs the question, why are they doing it on purpose? I find it difficult to imagine they are not aware of what they're doing.

This was my comment you responded to (I'll bold the part you focused on):

Interesting thing I've noticed about those calling themselves skeptics, such as Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptic Society, and its members, or those on youtube like CosmicSkeptic, that they are never all that skeptical about the claims made by evolutionists, or people like Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking (thinking of the claims made regarding a universe from nothing), or the related stories published as so-called "peer reviewed" science.

I literally quoted the title of Krauss' book, and Stephen Hawking's claim as it relates to this topic, is quoted at the start of the first video I responded with after your initial question about it. So not sure how you want to play the semantics game on the way I phrased something earlier. There was someone else many pages ago who included this idea of "a universe from nothing" (again quoting the title of Krauss' book, even though he's not actually talking about a universe from nothing in his book, cause according to him, "nothing isn't nothing anymore...in physics" and as one can see from what he's actually talking about in his book, contradicting his own chosen title) in his description of the Big Bang theory. But I already corrected him/her on that. From your description of events, it seems you want to skip to those events as well (after the universe is already in existence, using descriptions that are usually used to describe the early or earliest condition of the universe by those in the field, i.e. cosmologists). But I take it that the most obvious cop-out to deal with that would be to argue that your "dense core of material" is not part of the universe (or describing the early or earliest condition of the universe). If you'd go there it becomes even more irrelevant to my initial comment and the part you were responding to as if I said something wrong about it (or misrepresented their related claims).

The last part of my comment quoted above is more about "the claims made by evolutionists" (that's why I didn't bold it this time).

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

Absolutely nobody who studies this subject has ever said our universe came out of nothing. The most prevalent theory suggests the universe expanded from a very dense core of material. That core is not nothing.

Don't omit the fact that everything all matter in the entire universe was once the size of an atom.

Sounds whack doesn't it? I know I know lol.

Laugh at yourself once you learn a little more about atomic science.

Thanks I will learn more.

It's not odd not at all that all this and all those light-years worth of dark matter came from something which is basically "unseen" called an atom... we see these atom things in our everyday life, there's no imagination involved, we don't have to draw a representation of what these atom things look like because we see them, they are not unseen.

All that dark matter and the other matter stuff... a single atom

heavy stuff

Not an atom, all matter. Nobody knows the exact dimensions, but it was relatively small. Matter is virtually all empty space, so when you remove that space you are left with not a lot, which can compress into something very very small.

originally posted by: cooperton


If a microbe is the last universal common ancestor, how would the human lineage not be traced back to a microbe?? I just don't get how you avoid that conclusion

I said lets start with something closer and then later we can work back farther, you don't read my other posts very well that you respond to.

You all want to throw around the whole primordial soup thing and all I did was suggest we start a little closer to home with just the genic divergence in mammals at first.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

Absolutely nobody who studies this subject has ever said our universe came out of nothing. The most prevalent theory suggests the universe expanded from a very dense core of material. That core is not nothing.

Don't omit the fact that everything all matter in the entire universe was once the size of an atom.

Sounds whack doesn't it? I know I know lol.

Laugh at yourself once you learn a little more about atomic science.

Thanks I will learn more.

It's not odd not at all that all this and all those light-years worth of dark matter came from something which is basically "unseen" called an atom... we see these atom things in our everyday life, there's no imagination involved, we don't have to draw a representation of what these atom things look like because we see them, they are not unseen.

All that dark matter and the other matter stuff... a single atom

heavy stuff

Not an atom, all matter. Nobody knows the exact dimensions, but it was relatively small. Matter is virtually all empty space, so when you remove that space you are left with not a lot, which can compress into something very very small.

Did you say nobody knows? But I thought science was the authority here.

aiight let's go with the size of a marble then...

Does that make it sound more feasible?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

I said lets start with something closer and then later we can work back farther, you don't read my other posts very well that you respond to.

You all want to throw around the whole primordial soup thing and all I did was suggest we start a little closer to home with just the genic divergence in mammals at first.

Oh OK I read that wrong then. So from the common ancestor of chimps to humans, as a basic metric, they would need to create an additional 250,000 Miles of neural circuitry and organize it in a way that amplifies cognitive function to become human

originally posted by: cooperton

Oh OK I read that wrong then. So from the common ancestor of chimps to humans, as a basic metric, they would need to create an additional 250,000 Miles of neural circuitry and organize it in a way that amplifies cognitive function to become human

You keep going back to the same old arguments, and I keep telling you why you are wrong. Chimps are pretty smart too from whatever the common ancestor was. We are talking 8 million years in both cases of zero connection between chimps and humans so we see the differences of that today.

The problem that you just can not get away from is looking at the end result like it was predicted and it wasn't, so humans could have been here and maybe not. Things worked out that we are here but many other species of the homo group have come and gone. It seems intelligence is a good trait so it has helped us and many other animals too, but with your post above I'm assuming you do not think things can change that much in 8 million years, so that makes you more of an expert than 1000s of people in the field who have zero issues with it.

I'm sure you think they are all just fooling themselves, but just maybe it is you that is the fooling yourself more than anything else.

a reply to: whereislogic


I believe all the people mention when talking about what happened before a singularity event have said it doesn't matter since it was/is outside of our universe. Same conclusion is with did God make everything as it is not a topic either side can prove or disprove, its all non-falsifiable statements.

a reply to: iamthevirus

Hey I consider myself a pretty well rounded individual mate - one that's gone around the block again and again.

Funding of science is always a concern, as is the active agenda for omittance.

I suppose when it comes to the truly important stuff then the Idea that 'science is objective' is a fairy tale for kids.

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

Absolutely nobody who studies this subject has ever said our universe came out of nothing. The most prevalent theory suggests the universe expanded from a very dense core of material. That core is not nothing.

Don't omit the fact that everything all matter in the entire universe was once the size of an atom.

Sounds whack doesn't it? I know I know lol.

Laugh at yourself once you learn a little more about atomic science.

Thanks I will learn more.

It's not odd not at all that all this and all those light-years worth of dark matter came from something which is basically "unseen" called an atom... we see these atom things in our everyday life, there's no imagination involved, we don't have to draw a representation of what these atom things look like because we see them, they are not unseen.

All that dark matter and the other matter stuff... a single atom

heavy stuff

Not an atom, all matter. Nobody knows the exact dimensions, but it was relatively small. Matter is virtually all empty space, so when you remove that space you are left with not a lot, which can compress into something very very small.

Did you say nobody knows? But I thought science was the authority here.

aiight let's go with the size of a marble then...

Does that make it sound more feasible?

Possibly. Estimates have been carried out, including some claimed to be extremely accurate. I couldn't possibly endorse any findings, but I trust their expertise.

I don't know what you thought, but I know early Egyptians and Sumerians had no idea that the universe created a heat map that we can detect now which proves the universe did have 'something' in it before it expanded.

a reply to: Randyvine2

youtu.be...

You're one of the few members who understands that humanity is versus a Caananite cult.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton


The eye is completely consistent with evolution.

www.newscientist.com...

I see the storyline involving "light-sensitive cells" hasn't changed. See the remarks made in response to this storyline from 9:18 - 12:49 below:

Coming back to something I shared on page 13:

originally posted by: whereislogic

...

“You must know,” I replied, “that to give this neat picture, evolutionists have to leave out many of the fossils. They pick only the ones that support their theory, and assume that these are connected to each other.”

“They only simplify it to avoid confusion,” the student said.

I replied: “To avoid confusion they conceal the evidence, and in simplifying they oversimplify to the point of falsification.”

Indeed, that is just what Simpson says, that ‘the oversimplification of the horse fossil record amounts to falsification.’ ...

Source: Do I Have to Believe Evolution? (Awake!—1974)

The same can be said about the oversimplification of the storyline regarding the evolution of the eye.

A key point below at 2:44:

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

Absolutely nobody who studies this subject has ever said our universe came out of nothing. The most prevalent theory suggests the universe expanded from a very dense core of material. That core is not nothing.

Don't omit the fact that everything all matter in the entire universe was once the size of an atom.

Sounds whack doesn't it? I know I know lol.

Laugh at yourself once you learn a little more about atomic science.

Thanks I will learn more.

It's not odd not at all that all this and all those light-years worth of dark matter came from something which is basically "unseen" called an atom... we see these atom things in our everyday life, there's no imagination involved, we don't have to draw a representation of what these atom things look like because we see them, they are not unseen.

All that dark matter and the other matter stuff... a single atom

heavy stuff

Not an atom, all matter. Nobody knows the exact dimensions, but it was relatively small. Matter is virtually all empty space, so when you remove that space you are left with not a lot, which can compress into something very very small.

Did you say nobody knows? But I thought science was the authority here.

aiight let's go with the size of a marble then...

Does that make it sound more feasible?

Possibly. Estimates have been carried out, including some claimed to be extremely accurate. I couldn't possibly endorse any findings, but I trust their expertise.

I don't know what you thought, but I know early Egyptians and Sumerians had no idea that the universe created a heat map that we can detect now which proves the universe did have 'something' in it before it expanded.

That's only the visible universe, have to pay attention and listen to how often "visible" is referenced. There of course is the particle horizon so there's no way for sure to know the cmb is the ends of the universe... or the beginning depending on how one wishes to look at it.

Hey... atleast we can see a marble

Religion.

The stupidest thing to have ever been created by man.