Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

3. What are you drinking right now?

Well, this is only one of the options for interpretation. Another option might be that you don't know what an assumption to a theory is, why do you need assumptions (or preconditions) to build a sound theory ... for otherwise you may build a theory on quicksand or on black-box or whatever ... with undefined validation, why do you need the causality (the assumptions) to build the logic (the theory in this case), etc.
The major problem of some people is that they always look for the reasons of something outside the possibility for them to be wrong ... or to have some gaps and omissions in their knowledge and abilities to verify and validate data and information and to build sound knowledge.
They a priori assume that they can never be wrong, that they could not have any gaps and omissions on any theme (for the priori assumption is that they know everything as they usually accept everything as truth of the last resort without any verification and validation ... neither upon the knowledge acquisition nor ever thereafter).
The first step in the construction of any theory is to secure the foundations - the basis on which the theory is to be built, which is called assumptions (which in case of uncertainty are called preconditions). On one side this is used in the verification and validation of the theory later on, and on the other side this secures the initial causality in the construction of the theory.
Once you asked me why don't I reply to the rest of your comments - because you usually make some false assumptions and it makes no sense to comment the things after that.

All this talk about theories and evidence from a creationist...

then I ubmit that youre use of the term is quite incorrect. You've assigned something as a precondition without even discussing its relevance (In your mind). Im not a mindreader and I fail to se some of your analogies that you claim define a "precondition". You may wish to try to communicate in as "Scientific" terms as you are able, I only ask that you be correct and clear about it.


Assumptions and "preconditions " are NOT the same thing at all.
An assumption of natural selection is that Malthusian kinetics apply to populations, and that heritable traits are passed on through generations. That is certainly not a "precondition" .

A single precondition for the evolution of all life, as Darwin saw it, is that the planet is sufficiently old enough such that enough time has passed to allow all these "Transmutations" to occur, Therefore if you take a counter view to preconditions, you should at least try to verbalize the ones that are critical to the theory, not some self manufactured ones that have little relevance. (Unless of course you are better able to verbalize your points in adopting these "preconditions".
What may be a "precondition" to you, isprimarily an oversight on your behalf .

So in other words, you don't believe in God or ID because neither of those theories have secure foundations.

You were told that I am agnostic, but let me ask you something.
What can you say about your beautiful evolution theory claiming that 'bacteria were one of the first simple life forms'? Why don't you explain to us, the simple mortal, how much simple are these first forms?
They have flagellum rotating at 100 000 rounds per min, which actually is a masterpiece of electric motor design ... miniaturized beyond recognition ... to few nanometers? Do you really think that the electric motor came into existence from inorganic substances by chance ... and how much simple is an electric motor with dimensions of few nanometers?
What about the 'control mechanism. Bacteria can start, stop and change direction and speed so they must have sophisticated sensors, switches & control mechanics. How much simple are sensors and switches with dimensions of several picometers?
You are using creationist as a synonym of retard, but how much genius is an evolutionist claiming that the bacteria are one of the most simple things in the universe?

You need to quit basing your understanding of evolution on generalizations from public media or even from casual comments from scientists.

That's a very non-specific quote in which "one of the first" and "simple" are extremely relative. Bacteria are very simple in comparison to a multicellular organism like a person, and they are also a very early form of live in comparison to us as well. But they were NOT the earliest or nearly the SIMPLEST forms of life.

If you're going to challenge or question evolution, at least do it from accurate scientific statements.

What ros means by that, Herald, is that he has engaged with the subject at a far deeper level than such as he mentions.

Why he then goes on to demonstrate that he hasn't I can't imagine.

Maybe it's because he's a bit stupid and is unaware of the fact.

Why are you telling this to me. Why don't you go to the International Symposium of Evolutionary Biology and tell them that 'bacteria were one of the first simple life forms' actually is 'You need to quit basing your understanding of evolution on generalizations from public media or even from casual comments from scientists'.
If you are curious to know the 'casual comments from scientists' are the most valuable information the public has ever acquired in terms of scientific results, for most of the results, especially the ones that are in contradiction to some 'truths of the last resort' are concealed ... and lost in space and time.


What does extremely mean and how much relative it could be?
So your theory of the things is that if something is not grossly complex, and does not have a lot of processes, and is not huge enough for the processes to be detected and observed with a naked eye it is much more simple than the big things, hence automatically bacteria should be much more simple than Jupiter, for example. Oh, yes, Jupiter is not alive ... and what does alive mean ... in the event of viruses, for example, or other 'relatively simple' biostructures?


You should ask FM about this - he is expert in rocks of the right type ... and fossils varieties.


I am not challenging anything. This is just some reasoning ... in contradiction to some statements. I tried to ask some question, but as it comes it is too 'non-specific' & 'casual' ... if it is in contradiction, but it could be 'reinforced concrete evidence' ... if it is in compliance.

The"family tree" of early life is based upon several compelling lines of evidence that partly revolve about rocks of the right ages. Your intended points cant seem to catch a break can they?

FM, you are publishing this diagram for the secomd or the third time.
Actually, do you read at all what is the ongoing talk about - it is about the mind-blowing complexity & miniaturization (beyond recognition) ... of bacteria in the capacity of being 'one of the first simple life forms'.
If some of the most simple life forms are that complex (and miniaturised), can you tell at any approximation how much simple are the complex life forms that have evolved arbitrarily from a fossil diagram or whatever ... and how does that happen?


Where do you have in these 'lines of evidence' any 'compelling evidence' about the processes (of evolution ... & non-creation)?

An assertion by fm is compelling evidence H.

Most all of what Ive written has gone right over your head no?
The complexity of bacteria of specific genera is a result of aeons of evolution and development.
If youd have even looked at the "tree' above youd see the colors that relate to the various genera of orgnanisms that have evolved in 3Billion years. The ARCHAEA are those in green , EUkARYOTES in red and the BACTERIA in blue. Several new phyla have been classified as weve discovered all sorts of orgnisms in each of these groups.

When you don't read you are uninformed, when you read only the Bible, you are more likely to be misinformed, (after twain)

The phylogenetic line of the Proteobacteria (the alphaproteobacteria) displays the earliest line of these microscopic linneages. They were merely blebds and blobs of life with very simple cell walls, complexes of 3400 genes all held in a "gell" without any DNA and evolution was accomplished by simple gene transfer during fission.
The phylogenetic tree (from Sozeby) is easily gotten off PUBMED.I got such a tree in Wikipedia (just to see whether it was there and it was)


Jut look up proteobacteria and alphaproteobacteria, evolution and development.
Im done being a primary resource for you to ignore.

The Bible is a collection of eyewitness accounts of close encounters between humans and off-world beings, beats me why Twain thinks they were 'misinformed'.
For example when eyewitnesses saw something like this, they could only put it into words within their own frame of reference-

"Then David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the Lord standing between earth and heaven, having in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem. So David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell on their faces" (1 Chron 2:16)

Jesus wept . . . why don't you get some new material? This **** you post was not interesting the first time you posted it, and posting it fifteen more times doesn't make it any more interesting.

Did eyewitnesses see something like that or is Romeo just pulling silly information outta his capacious ass again?

I cant believe that when a gamer grows up into an adult he turns into something like a Romeo.


PS, "after Twain" doesn't mean I copied it word for word. Twain was including newspapers.

Do revel in your own incompetence? If you want to reply to Romeo, click on Romeo's post, not mine.

Edited because FM is not worth the grief.

WOW, you are certainly on a snit this fine AM. Why not crawl back into your cage a bit longer when you can pick on folks wholl take your ****. Im not one.

Ill fuckin post to whatever I feel like posting to. If it cheeses you off, why not re- enroll in anger management or get some fuckin breakfast.
OTHERWISE **** OFF FATTY

Ah, your brilliance shines through again.