Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@spendius,

When multiple people tell you the same thing perhaps it's a sign you need to look inward.

1 Reply

@Herald,

It's funny because Herald thinks he's really owning right now when in reality he just sounds stupid..

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

Quote:

When multiple people tell you the same thing perhaps it's a sign you need to look inward.

You'll have to explain that James. As it stands it makes no sense. Except that it bodes ill for your scientific future.

It's a Apisaism too.

1 Reply

@spendius,

This isn't anything to do with science.

This is a character flaw that YOU have. Further denial won't help you change yourself, spendius.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

If you can come up with a better hypothesis which also fits all the empirical evidence then science would be open to exploring it.

All the evolution might be a pre-set ID - is another hypothesis.
I don't claim it is 'better'. I don't even claim it is valid. It is just another.
But can you explain me something else: if the big bang is still in operation (as the theory claims) why it does not perform evolutionary measures right here and right now. We are 7 BN on this planet - why don't we evolve into several new species? What is the big bang waiting for?

further wrote:

... verified and validated, many many times over.

By what? You cannot verify and validate a theory with the data from which it is derived. I start doubting that you even understand the meaning of verification and validation.

further wrote:

Biological Evolution is not a stochastic process. People have been telling you that over and over now for weeks if not months on this thread and you still keep repeating it without addressing it.

Why don't you simply say it: it is deterministic. It involves no randomness in the development of the future states of the system. It is a deterministic model that always produces the same output from a given initial state and development conditions. It is an algorithm. It is a program - pre-set by an Intelligent Designer ... or another ILF, or whoever it might be. Why don't you simply say it.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

and right now. We are 7 BN on this planet - why don't we evolve into several new species? What is the big bang waiting for?

I'm starting to think you don't know the difference between the big bang and evolution...

First of all, evolution is a process that occurs over millions of years. We have many different ape species that have lead up to humans (austrolopitheces, homo habilis, etc.). It is likely that humans will continue to evolve over the next million years.

Quote:

It is a program - pre-set by an Intelligent Designer ... or another ILF, or whoever it might be. Why don't you simply say it.

And you claim to be agnostic?

If evolution is a "program", it is one of the worst programs ever!! There are so many flaws and pointless mutations it's a wonder we function at all.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

All the evolution might be a pre-set ID - is another hypothesis.

Correct. But it's not a scientific hypothesis. Which are all that really matter.

Herald wrote:

If the big bang is still in operation (as the theory claims) why it does not perform evolutionary measures right here and right now. We are 7 BN on this planet - why don't we evolve into several new species? What is the big bang waiting for?

Just because you can't see the trees growing doesn't mean they aren't growing. The Universe is still evolving cosmologically and life on earth is still evolving biologically.

Herald wrote:

Why don't you simply say it: it is deterministic.

No. It's not deterministic. It's very clear from the mountains of evidence exactly how biology is evolving: Reproduction, Variation and Natural Selection result in Biological Evolution. It's been proven. It's been understood and accepted scientifically for over a hundred years. Done deal.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
If you can come up with a better hypothesis which also fits all the empirical evidence then science would be open to exploring it.

All the evolution might be a pre-set ID - is another hypothesis.
I don't claim it is 'better'. I don't even claim it is valid. It is just another.

The problem you have is you are unable to test such a hypothesis. You merely propose it because you don't like the accepted one.

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

I'm starting to think you don't know the difference between the big bang and evolution ...

Big bang is the mastermind (or the casino croupier or whatever there it is) of the evolution of the stars which caused somehow the evolution of the species. This is not my theory - this is in the books that FM strongly recommended to me.

further wrote:

First of all, evolution is a process that occurs over millions of years.

You have no evidences to this claim (aside from the fossils ... of the rocks of the right type) that do not prove actually the existence of a process, but rather the existence of fossils ... in space and time. The fossils don't even prove strong enough correlation to suggest common process of development. What evidences do you have that this process exists at all?

further wrote:

We have many different ape species that have lead up to humans (austrolopitheces, homo habilis, etc.).

... whereat all the DNA code of the humans leads to ... one female individual. Can you explain how exactly these 'many different ape species' have genetically designed only one female individual?

Quote:

It is a program - pre-set by an Intelligent Designer ... or another ILF, or whoever it might be. Why don't you simply say it.

further wrote:
And you claim to be agnostic?

Yes, and don't forget that this is in reply to your fellow-atheists saying that
'people have been telling you that over and over now for weeks if not months' ... that evolution is not stochastic. If it is not stochastic it should be deterministic.

Quote:

If evolution is a "program", it is one of the worst programs ever!! There are so many flaws and pointless mutations it's a wonder we function at all.

I am not sure about this, but as you say it.
It may be the complexity that does not allow further elaboration. It may be also impossible to make perfect program.
It may be perfect after all, but we to be unable to understand it.
Ask FM – he is expert on everything.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Big bang is the mastermind (or the casino croupier or whatever there it is) of the evolution of the stars which caused somehow the evolution of the species. This is not my theory - this is in the books that FM strongly recommended to me.

Somehow? Have you ever read a science text book in your life?

Quote:

You have no evidences to this claim (aside from the fossils ... of the rocks of the right type) that do not prove actually the existence of a process, but rather the existence of fossils ... in space and time. The fossils don't even prove strong enough correlation to suggest common process of development. What evidences do you have that this process exists at all?

Radiometric dating, fossils, DNA gene similarity/hybridization, etc.
Don't ask questions that have obvious answers please.

Quote:

... whereat all the DNA code of the humans leads to ... one female individual. Can you explain how exactly these 'many different ape species' have genetically designed only one female individual?

Not sure what you're even talking about. Are you denying the existence of austrolopitheces and homo habilis? What exactly are you trying to do? Do you think I'm not going to call you out for avoiding my posts?

Throughout this entire discussion all you've done is point and choose your battles while avoiding all other arguments that have been presented to you. You've proven that your scientific knowledge is about as reliable as Micky Mouse.

All the while you've been inferring/hinting that you are some type of amazing intellectual with vast amounts of knowledge in astronomy, astrophysics, biology, and chemistry when you don't know fundamental principles in any of the above.

My assessment: you're a joke.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Quote:
Big bang is the mastermind (or the casino croupier or whatever there it is) of the evolution of the stars which caused somehow the evolution of the species. This is not my theory - this is in the books that FM strongly recommended to me.

Youre forcing me to say something that I reserve for only the most fraudulent of opponents-YOU , sir, are a lying sack of hit. NO BOOK IVE RECCOMMENDED TO YOU, confuses the two concepts. You are nuts.

Quote:

The fossils don't even prove strong enough correlation to suggest common process of development. What evidences do you have that this process exists at all?

Even though the fossil record is pretty damned convincing as to form and function via correlation of hard part (nd things like feathers), there are so many other science disciplines that support the fossil record in biology, physics, chemistry and geology that the evidence , in total is really compelling. To ignore it , one must really be super convinced that he has an "Answer" to the origin of life . ALL thi is done by Creationists WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.

Remember that natural selection is a concept that was concluded to be a fact only after a century or more of evidence gathering and testing AFTER DARWIN. Evidence became so strong that even the CAtholic Church had accepted it and now teaches it in their own parochial Universities . Same thing with other Church Affiliated colleges and Univerities. Only a thin slice of Fundamental Christians having their own " Institutes of Higher Learning" even teach "Scientific Creationism> and, in all of these Schools, the regional ACCREDITATION BOARDS refuse to accredit these colleges . (What that means is that, you can get a "creation Science Degree" but it doesn't count for anything in satisfying "Credits" for a students GPE to try to gain admission to a medical school or to seek an advanced degree in Biology or Geoscinces).
Now the onlyconclusion that we derive from all this is that ID and Creationism are NOT RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES, they are merely a religious (and therefore limited) Worldview that does NOT recognize the scientific method or the history of science of the fcats of evidence.

Its really sad to me, how kids are shortchanged when they wish to take up a career in science or medicine and are kept from entry because they've been duped(mostly by their parents) into studying a myth based discipline that is best used as an introduction to join the ministry of some Fundamental religion (like Snake Handlers or "Extreme Baptists").

Quote:

... whereat all the DNA code of the humans leads to ... one female individual

Or one male also or al bunch of kids from specific parents. Evolution does seem to affect some individual and the genetic benefit gets transferred to a population. This is an area of discussion and debate even now. It even includes the concept of "hopeful Monsters" . population in
general

Quote:

If it is not stochastic it should be deterministic.

Perhaps, but it can also be "Opportunistic" . Im a fan of limit functions when it comes to the billions of possible expressions in an amount of genes. Im also a fan that many genes together need to be there to express onetrait, and also that one gene can express many traits.
Im a big fan of Gould's idea that GENES ARE MERELY THE BOOKKEEPING OF EVOLUTION.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Have you nothing to say to this post of mine fm?

Quote:

Here you are fm on Gaia.

Quote:

gaia is an interesting concept, that's all. It has several biological inputs that (taken alone) are compelling. However, to buy it all one must subscribe to some animistic beliefs.

Quote:

The main "science" is the work done by Lynne Margulis

The impression given by those, assuming most people won't notice the "all", is that Lynne Margulis is an animist. (Read nut case). And she is an American biologist and University Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

And in a punctuated parenthesis in one of her paragraphs she wrote there is this---, Gaia, the physiologically regulated Earth,---and thus you blackened the name of an eminent scientist with animism when she gave you no reason to do so.

That's how you lead your claque up the garden path. From you they learn that Gaia theory is animistic and it isn't. And what you said was nothing but a gratuitous, incorrect, unjust, ungallant and unsubstantiated smear in the service of your denial, for professional purposes. of man made global warming so that you can continue to believe that providing cheaper energy is a respectable and even an admirable occupation when there are many scientists who think it is the road to ruin.

You should have.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I don't care to argue about Gaia any more than I do about punctuated equilibrium. Neither has any evidence at this point (PE actually has had evidence that was debunked).
No, its an artidficial aside made for hobbyists who don't have any use for evolutionary theory in the workplace. Im all about applications. (IF IT WORKS< ILL APPLY IT). If not, Ill let the pop philosophers dick around with it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

There ain't no room for the hopeless sinner
Who would hurt all mankind just to save his own

Bob Dylan--People Get Ready.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I don't care to argue about Gaia any more than I do about punctuated equilibrium.

Neither do I.

Quote:

Neither has any evidence at this point (PE actually has had evidence that was debunked).

What about Lovelock, from whom Margulis took her cue, and his Daisyworld thought experiment.

Quote:

No, its an artidficial aside made for hobbyists who don't have any use for evolutionary theory in the workplace.

A self-serving assertion.

You have evaded the points. That you led your fawning claque up the garden path and that you falsely smeared an eminent scientist in order to do so.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im a big fan of Gould's idea that GENES ARE MERELY THE BOOKKEEPING OF EVOLUTION.

This is a claim without any evidences. How did you succeed to assign belief to this statement?
Bookkeeping here means perhaps 'history record' (it is not entirely clear actually what it means).
If this claim is true our DNA should be able to be traced back beyond the female founder of the human species ... back to the cyano-bacteria. Do you have the computation?

4 Replies

@Herald,

youre not understanding the concept are you? Your last sentence is actually quite stupid. There is no reason to believe that at all. It is only to de discovered. In fact, several of the minor organisms have genomes BIGGER than humans. Why is that?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Has fm answered your question to him about an alternative to the belief and practice of religion Herald?

Get this--

Quote:

Its really sad to me, how kids are shortchanged when they wish to take up a career in science or medicine and are kept from entry because they've been duped(mostly by their parents) into studying a myth based discipline that is best used as an introduction to join the ministry of some Fundamental religion (like Snake Handlers or "Extreme Baptists").

Which means all the medical expertise is now in the hands of evolutionists.

A brave new world indeed. Eugenics and involuntary euthanasia are just around the corner. If not already here.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

If this claim is true our DNA should be able to be traced back beyond the female founder of the human species ... back to the cyano-bacteria.

Are you seriously arguing that a bacterium alive today is your ancestor?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Stop responding to Herald.

Take a look at his responses. He ignores the bulk of your posts (after you've clearly debunked him) and changes the subject. He does this every time without fail.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know