Mr Troll: yo man, I give butthurts not the other way round. I just needed to school you a bit before you start worshipping Mr Whargabl
I don't make untrue statements though. Have I ever?

lol......your op was full of shyte


Evolution is a fact. End of story

Logicboy03:

lol......your op was full of shyte


Evolution is a fact. End of story

we give upp

Mr Troll: we give upp

davidylan:

Lets all laugh at wiegraf... evolution is a "fact" that unfortunately you have no proof for ei?.

DAVID!!!

You've not cured your rabies, still running on blind foolishness hate, it seems. This is another senseless post.

Btw, you wouldn't address me for how long now, because I was 'rude' to you??.

DOHOHOOHO... Pot and kettle no do

And a scientist saying there's no proof for evolutio...(No, PCs are logic devices, so they could crash if it came across such an absurd sentence.)
A scientist saying there's no. Proof for evolution? Wow (Lucky. PC didn't crash.)

davidylan:
If it was "logical and natural" i wonder why that "seminal experiment" isnt in every serious biology textbook today. For such a natural explanation of how the earth began, it seems to have relegated to the dustbin of history.

Obviously you have never read the experiment... because NASA wrote a rebuttal to it in the 1980s showing many of its initial premises were not likely to have been possible.

Are you saying it was not logical? Assuming it really has been proven false (and I'm not saying it has, it would be rather foolish of me (or anyone else for that matter) to take your word for it), are you saying that a solution cannot be both wrong and logical?

Every hypothesis put forward that was ultimately proven wrong was illogical then, yes? In fact, every theory that has ultimately been proven false would then qualify as illogical as well, yes? That would make Newton an illogical dolt then, as strictly speaking his theory of gravity was ultimately proven to be...wrong. In fact, when we find a quantum theory of gravity, Einstein's GR would also be proven to be illogical, yes?

As for natural, please, do show the supernatural elements of miller-ulrey. I'll be here all day.

You, a scientist, need me to tell you about the scientific method? It is a one of refinement, built around..... falsifiability. If your scientists rebutted it, it was because it was a logical premise that could be falsified. Illogical premises need not be falsified as by they're very definition, they're false!! It also had NO supernatural elements as, obviously, those cannot be falsified. So, thanks for proving my point, that it's both logical AND natural. Again, if it weren't, the scientific method could not be applied to it...

As for your use of the word 'likely', read back a little to my posts about odds, etc. You've just admitted it's conceptually possible, naturally, but unlikely. So, again, thanks.


Random ramble;

It seems that as usual, you just jumped in foolishly. It seems you think me stating that miller-ulrey was the only viable candidate for abiogenesis, and that it was perfect. Think before you post.

And let me talk about stuff that's illogical, supernatural and unfalsifiable which folk try to shove down our throats as science. Most prominent example being your nonsense in particular; yah'weh. Please, do tell me how we'll go about testing for (any) god that can retreat to immaterialness? Or how logical propositions like; the earth's age is about 10,000 years old; a man survived in a whale for 3 days; millions of species survived on a boat, probably wooden even, for 40? days; omniscient with free will; man from mud, woman from rib; evolution not occurring, etc etc, qualify as logical?

Mr Troll: dohohohohoho
yo man, lemme school you a bit. i know you have a windows '95 brain and due to the fact that i have a soft spot for you i'll explain it in dumbo terms...

first of all my OP was trying to tell you atheists that while you go about b'itch slapping the theists when they start spewing their 'god of the gaps' nonsense, you yourselves do not have all the answers because man, you dont know for sure if anything caused the big bang. now your captain mr wiegraf 'mumuishly' jumped into the fray and when i asked him, how do you know for sure that evolution as we know it is undirected, totally random and purposeless? the best he could come up with was well...a great many many top scientists say so and because they are infinitely smarter than the general public they must be right. if that is not Appeal to authority then i dont know what is. maybe it tickles his fancy when they put up a 'scientists vs the public' polls forgetting that the said 'public' might be doctors, lawyers, engineers, philosophers who in fact despite not being 'scientists' might know something about the cosmological argument and therefore might not be quite as illiterate as y'all like to imagine.
now tell me again what mr wiegraf schooled me on? what again is his iron cast irrefutable proof that you atheists are not spewing the evolution of the nonsense? eh...some top top scientists BELIEVE so? how did they come about their belief? whargabl whargabl whargabl.

honest advice logic boy: anytime you wanna sign up for a 'team wiegraf' make sure his smart enough. kapisce? i hope so!

After all that, this is all you got?

I can't blame the school for this.. seems it wasn't their fault..

Indeed, not that I quibble about stuff like this usually, but mentioning intelligence while using "his" that way..

wiegraf:

After all that, this is all you got?

I can't blame the school for this.. seems it wasn't their fault..

Indeed, not that I quibble about stuff like this usually, but mentioning intelligence while using "his" that way..

I de shame for you. Really? You could stoop so low? You know, I saw the typo after I've submitted the post but on second thoughts just decided to leave because I didnt wanna go through the stress of modifying. But being the painfully immature adult(that's a compliment) you are, you just had to grasp at something.
Butthurt much? dohohohohohoho

you m.oron:
I de shame for you. Really? You could stoop so low? You know, I saw the typo after I've submitted the post but on second thoughts just decided to leave because I didnt wanna go through the stress of modifying. But being the painfully immature adult(that's a compliment) you are, you just had to grasp at something.
Butthurt much? dohohohohohoho

For once, an accurate statement (my immaturity). Everything else....

You consistently show an inability to think on your own, thoroughbred sheeple style. So that's not stooping low, it's just pointing out that your stoopidity manifests itself in all shapes and sizes. You post something stoopid, expect to be treated like you deserve. Don't play the victim, it's silly. Not my fault you're foolish.

you m.oron:

how do you know for sure that evolution as we know it is undirected, totally random and purposeless?

Because, great genius (not that one, that one is actually a lot smarter than you, even if misguided), there's absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to suggest it is guided by any sort of conscious intelligence. ANYWHERE. Anyone suggesting so is simply adding his baggage. In fact, there's evidence pointing in the other direction. For instance, consider the just the fact that it relies on CHANCE... It is completely haphazard in its operations. No aim or purpose anywhere..

If you cannot show a purpose anywhere, especially when there are GLARING design flaws like vestigials ,gargantuan time frames and dice rolling involved, then shut up instead of making one up.

What options are left then? Simple, matter and energy doing what they do; interact. Water down a hill will form a river, I'm pretty sure simple physical laws had nothing to do with that. It was all in some wizard's plan, nature does not interact on its own. It needs a wizard capable of popping out of nowhere (or existing through eternity), a wizard magically capable of interacting himself, to enable it to do so. (please note; sarcasm)

me:
We've seen the effects of artificial selection and breeding in very short time frames (see even dogs)

you m.oron:

simulations by intelligent humans to show that other designed beings and species were undesigned and random. Hmmmm...and I'm the brainless olodo here.

Again, as it gives me much joy, let me use this opportunity point out that you are indeed a brainless olodo. Your words and, as with the truism I noted earlier, one of the few places where you are actually correct.

No, genius, it shows you (among other things) what can be achieved in a very short space of time when CONSCIOUS INTELLIGENCE is involved. In less than what, 4-5000 years max humans have taken wolves and turned them into hairless toy dogs. This we achieved using, simply, breeding. Artificial selection, if you will.

Imagine (and I know it's hard for you to use your brain, but try) if we played about with their genes instead of waiting for generations to observe the changes, an ability any society more advanced than us/GOD!!! should easily posses. Consider, when did the age of enlightenment begin? Yet we humans have already spliced human genes into cows, so as to give them the ability to produce something akin to human milk. Soon enough a 200+ year old human lifespan may become a reality, perhaps even within your lifetime. Yet here you are, suggesting the ultimate intelligence took billions of years planet forming, 100s of millions of years fumbling through mutations and natural selection to finally come up with....us.

Or are you saying mutations/natural selection do NOT exist? That these are not the agents of evolution, the process responsible responsible for biodiversity? If they do, are you in any way implying that they are the logical way to go about achieving this purpose in particular; creating us??

me:
I hope you don't assume you're the center of the universe. That all this was created...... just for you?!

you m.oron:

ah! Assume for me then go ahead to 'debunk' the assumption. Classic Wiegraf!!!

Wait, what is that again? You never said we were the center of the universe? My good fool, if you insist we are the purpose, then we are the center of the universe. And when you insist that I do not know for sure that we aren't the purpose, then you are indeed insisting we are (or could potentially be, doesn't matter) the center of the universe. Why this has to be pointed out is beyond me. This is basic abc...

Everything around would have been built just for us, not the other way around, simple. The sun (which produces the same amount of energy as about a trillion 1 megaton bombs, every second.. And you know just how many trillions of sun's are out there, yes? Just how much of that power do we use?) would be shinning just for us. 99% percent of every species that has ever existed is now extinct. All those species would have existed and become extinct... just for us. Etc, etc, etc... There a long list of similar examples of astronomical, mind numbing inefficiency and waste so long as one assumes we are the purpose. Now, knowing all this, you dare look another in the eye and tell them that WE ARE THE PURPOSE?! Really? I'd like to meet this nonsense designer responsible. Human engineers seem a lot saner.

So, when I say we are definitely not the purpose, I am as sure about that as I am as sure of the sun rising tomorrow. When you ask for proof (and not 'theorize'*, che), I point you towards the haphazard and inefficient nature of evolution, and the ridiculous size of the galaxy and waste, and you have the gall to not consider that proof? What the 4k do you want, a written statement from god claiming he did not do it?

I will even ignore the inanity of you suggesting we are on religionist backs because they assert there's a purpose to the universe (which is ridiculous as well, but we can ignore that. and I hope don't need me to show you were, in your infinite foolishness, you unwittingly assert this...). You well know that's not the extent of they're folly, they insist WE are the purpose.

me:
Making claims like vestigials don't exist

you m.oron:

who made those claims in bold?

You have to understand it's hard to remain calm when facing folly such as this...

If you assert vestigials have a purpose, just how the Bleep are they vestigial?? Use whatever contraption you use as a brain, set it to max, and try to think please....

By their very definition, THEY ARE PURPOSELESS. Again, once they have a useful function, then just how do they remain vestigial?

So what is it, do vestigials have a purpose or not? Once you assert they do, they are not vestigial anymore, in which case you are denying the EXISTENCE OF VESTIGIALS. Is that clear?

Why the f^kc one has to explain simple things like this bewilders me..

you m.oron:

now your captain mr wiegraf 'mumuishly' jumped into the fray and when i asked him, how do you know for sure that evolution as we know it is undirected, totally random and purposeless? the best he could come up with was well...a great many many top scientists say so and because they are infinitely smarter than the general public they must be right.

No, you dolt...

Did you even try at all? Did you note the words I bolded?

you m.oron:

Nobodys talking about the theory of gravity here because the word 'theory' as used in 'the theory of gravity' is very different from when its used in 'the theory of evolution'

can you print this and paste it on Wiegrafs forehead? Although i wouldn't say science is being hypocritical. Just the baby pseudoscientists on this forum being all presumptuous and haughty. grin

When @lb posted this;

lb:
Guy shut up.....Weigraff schooled you on your ignorance about theories

Did your 'brain' process anything reasonable at all? Perhaps the fact that he didn't talk about evolution per say, but about THEORIES?

From the very beginning you've being going on about how we should not "THEORIZE" and how we should give you proof*. About how the word 'theory' applies to evolution; not the same way as when referenced with gravity. My good m.oron, the point of that post was to show that the scientific community CLEARLY uses the word theory in the very same manner it uses it with GR... Unless you, in your all encompassing wisdom, know better than they do, and they do not know what they classify as a scientific theory. I went out of my way to stress this, bolding out the related statements, yet you completely missed it....

Evolution is a proper THEORY, scientific, not a hypothesis. Near unanimously accepted by the scientific community (except for the odd quack like @david, if he really is a scientist ie), with proof and evidence EVERYWHERE. But wait, you don't want anyone to 'theorize' the way we 'theorize' about evolution (in real time 2013!!! *gasp*), and all the various bits of evidence I've been going on about, eg vestigials, don't exist....


Your folly is actually greater than this.. For instance, this

me:
But do note, evolution is a FACT.

you m.oron:

Mr wiegraf, did you actually write this? In real time 2013?

Ok, lemme not go off the handle now. Do you mean, undirected random evolution from the big bang up till man is FACT?

Then you have the nerve to complain when I show you how, claiming it being irrelevant... That is even ignoring the inanity of not recognizing that evolution is only responsible for speciation, not everything from the BB till now...

Kayi..foolish troll...I'll concede you live up to the name. This is all I have time for, for now. Addressing all your folly would truly require a novella.

This week is going to busy irl. Kudos.


* that condition is a contender for the most asinine request posted on these boards. Similar to, and up there with, this one from the good-natured (even if, well..) onyfrank

onyfrank: Yes! If the earth was billion of yrs old, humans & animals would've drank it all up. We would have no oceans. Yet d oceans take up 75% of d globe.
I think u could also make a similar argument with oxygen. If humans existed 4 billions of yrs like d Darwinists claim, we would 've ran out of air too.
I knw many of u will show up here and claim dat all d water we drink is eventually given off as sweat and urine. Well, jst think abt it - that would mean that all our lakes, oceans, rivers and streams would consist of urine and sweat. Evry time it rains and snows there would sweat and urine falling from the sky. The entire earth would b a giant cesspool of sweat and urine - we would b making our coffee 4rm fresh urine 4rm our faucets, and bathing in sweat and urine.
Logically u hav to go with d bible on this one.

He wanted us to show us where all the sweat and urine went to. Yes, you often are as ridiculous..
Don't use theories to explain a scientific process...wtf..

^^^ Could evolution happen outside a planet. Could humans exist without the earth. Could the earth exist without the sun and could the sun exist outside of a galaxy, and could galaxies exist absent a universe, and could a universe exist without the big b.ang, and could the big b.ang have happened without a singularity?

These answer your question on purpose, size and waste, re: the universe and us.

It is thus perfectly conceivable that to create one human being, you need an entire universe.

I'm crying for wiegraf.













PS: expect him to post another repeat whargabl on that one sentence.
PS2: I think his butthurt has grown into a boil. It needs bursting
PS3: @wiegraf, what do you think that long boring post up there has achieved? Dohohohohohoho!

Deep Sight:
^^^ Could evolution happen outside a planet. Could humans exist without the earth. Could the earth exist without the sun and could the sun exist outside of a galaxy, and could galaxies exist absent a universe, and could a universe exist without the big b.ang, and could the big b.ang have happened without a singularity?

These answer your question on purpose, size and waste, re: the universe and us.

[size=18pt]It is thus perfectly conceivable that to create one human being, you need an entire universe.[/size]

What a fallacious statement in bold.

It said "to create one human being" -

And that's perfectly sound.

To create a human being, you would need a place to place the human being in, no? Do places exist, absent a context, an environment, a cosmos?

Why is thinking, even the most elementary thinking, such as this, so hard for you?

Deep Sight:
It said "to create one human being" -

And that's perfectly sound.

To create a human being, you would need a place to place the human being in, no? Do places exist, absent a context, an environment, a cosmos?

Why is thinking, even the most elementary thinking, such as this, so hard for you?

A Universe consists of galaxies, stars and a huge amount of space.

All that is needed for humans to survive is a simple piece of land with conducive atmosphere. A human being can live in a glass tube if the conditions are right.

Logicboy03:



A Universe consists of galaxies, stars and a huge amount of space.

All that is needed for humans to survive is a simple piece of land with conducive atmosphere. A human being can live in a glass tube if the conditions are right.

Glass tubes are made of sand, and for sand to exist, you will still need a cosmos, a universe.

Deep Sight:

Glass tubes are made of sand, and for sand to exist, you will still need a cosmos, a universe.

Wow....very nice way to miss the point. A human doesnt need a universe to exist. All he needs is a conducive environment not even as big as a planet

Oh and sand can be made artificially- although, very costly

Logicboy03:




Wow....very nice way to miss the point. A human doesnt need a universe to exist. All he needs is a conducive environment not even as big as a planet

And can you imagine any such "conducive environment" which would not be a place existing in a universe?

For one who claims logic, you do not aspire to it at all.

Well, let's break it down for you. You have at least admitted the human would need an environment in which to exist. Okay. Now, would that "environment" exist in a void?

The environment in which we exist, is the earth. Could the earth exist without a sun? Could the sun exist, if not as part of a galaxy? Do I need to say all this all over again?

Oh and sand can be made artificially- although, very costly

Well for the sand to be artificial, you would first need a natural environment where there is natural sand - before you could declare anything else to be artificial sand. While we are at that, for it to be costly, you would need a community and an economy, which would still require an environment, which still cannot exist in a void, but only within a larger environment - a cosmos.

Are you sadistic or a prankster or something? Why do you have to make me painstakingly explain such a-b-c as though I am some kindergarten class teacher?

Logicboy03:



A Universe consists of galaxies, stars and a huge amount of space.

All that is needed for humans to survive is a simple piece of land with conducive atmosphere. A human being can live in a glass tube if the conditions are right.

pathetic. I expect a little more from you sir.

Chibuebem: pathetic. I expect a little more from you sir.

This one wants to join an enlightened discussion by all means.....abegi.

Deep Sight:

And can you imagine any such "conducive environment" which would not be a place existing in a universe?

For one who claims logic, you do not aspire to it at all.

Well, let's break it down for you. You have at least admitted the human would need an environment in which to exist. Okay. Now, would that "environment" exist in a void?

The environment in which we exist, is the earth. Could the earth exist without a sun? Could the sun exist, if not as part of a galaxy? Do I need to say all this all over again?



Well for the sand to be artificial, you would first need a natural environment where there is natural sand - before you could declare anything else to be artificial sand. While we are at that, for it to be costly, you would need a community and an economy, which would still require an environment, which still cannot exist in a void, but only within a larger environment - a cosmos.

Are you sadistic or a prankster or something? Why do you have to make me painstakingly explain such a-b-c as though I am some kindergarten class teacher?

Guy....your thinking remains fallacious.


You said- "It is thus perfectly conceivable that to create one human being, you need an entire universe."

The simple point here is that our galaxy or even smaller- our solar system is enough for us to exist.

You are making an anthropomorphic fallacy right here.




BTW; you dont freaking need natural sand to make artificial sand in theory. You are thinking of the current method of using waste glass to make fine/soft sand.

The chemical elements of sand are already known.

Logicboy03:




This one wants to join an enlightened discussion by all means.....abegi.

no, thats not it. It seems you've not been yourself these days. You've been making very terrible statements

Logicboy03:



Guy....your thinking remains fallacious.


You said- "It is thus perfectly conceivable that to create one human being, you need an entire universe."

The simple point here is that our galaxy or even smaller- our solar system is enough for us to exist.

You are making an anthropomorphic fallacy right here.

And given even the little we know of the big b.ang, is it possible for it to have sprouted just one galaxy?

If it did, would that galaxy not have disintegrated almost instantly, by expansion?

So you see, my friend, it does take a whole universe to make a man.

Logicboy03:


BTW; you dont freaking need natural sand to make artificial sand in theory. You are thinking of the current method of using waste glass to make fine/soft sand.

The chemical elements of sand are already known.

O no, you miss the point entirely (as usual) - I am saying that you would not call artificial sand "artificial" if there was no such thing as natural sand in the first place.

Chibuebem: no, thats not it. It seems you've not been yourself these days. You've been making very terrible statements

O, he is surely being his very normal and regular self.

Slow to grasp any reasoning, and most confident in error.

Chibuebem: no, thats not it. It seems you've not been yourself these days. You've been making very terrible statements

Terrible by your standards, eh?

Deep Sight:

And given even the little we know of the big b.ang, is it possible for it to have sprouted just one galaxy?

If it did, would that galaxy not have disintegrated almost instantly, by expansion?

So you see, my friend, it does take a whole universe to make a man.



O no, you miss the point entirely (as usual) - I am saying that you would not call artificial sand "artificial" if there was no such thing as natural sand in the first place.

Guy, just give up.


Let us look at this with reason-

If the big bang resulted in just one or two galaxies, it would be enough for humans to exist.

Or look at it this way.....an assumption..if we found out that there is a galaxy outside our universe just on it's own, can we say that it wouldnt hold humans because a galaxy is not a universe?

Deep Sight:
^^^ Could evolution happen outside a planet. Could humans exist without the earth. Could the earth exist without the sun and could the sun exist outside of a galaxy, and could galaxies exist absent a universe, and could a universe exist without the big b.ang, and could the big b.ang have happened without a singularity?

These answer your question on purpose, size and waste, re: the universe and us.

It is thus perfectly conceivable that to create one human being, you need an entire universe.

Still hard to swallow.

For instance, why even evolution in the first place? It's not the most surefire way of coming up with humanity; chance. Hundreds of millions of years of throwing dice? No way a conscious intelligence was behind that. Even our breeders are more efficient. Waiting millions/billions of years for nebula to turn to stars, scouring myriad of them, fingers crossed, hoping planets in goldilucks zones spring up. Letting 99% of species die before arriving at us, why? That many were needed to die, why? Leaving us to the mercy of a meteor obliterating us, or many other possible extinction level events, events that have actually taken place on this planet. Etc etc..

These are definitely not the actions of an intelligent consciousness with the purpose being us, not at all. The personal god concept in particular is flawed no matter how you look at it.

Also, before you can even assert this you have to show that this universe is the only conceivable one, or at least the optimal one for whatever the purpose may be. We certainly can't show that. Considering support for multiverse theories (yes, eediot @mr troll, these ones aren't proper scientific theories like evolution but hypothesis, learn the difference) it would seem quite a few (tentatively) don't think this is the only possible universe, or the only universe in existence sef. In fact, most theists/deists/etc don't think so as well, as this 'spirit' realm(s), heaven, hell, etc, would qualify as a separate universes as well by (probably) most definitions. So why this? And of course, in this fashion?

Mr Troll: I'm crying for wiegraf.













PS: expect him to post another repeat whargabl on that one sentence.
PS2: I think his butthurt has grown into a boil. It needs bursting
PS3: @wiegraf, what do you think that long boring post up there has achieved? Dohohohohohoho!

Don't worry. You might not see the value of the post, but there are people around with actual brains who could put it to use.. troll...

I'll give it you, you're a decent troll. You've got a healthy dose of natural foolishness. You could go far in this trade

wiegraf:

Don't worry. You might not see the value of the post, but there are people around with actual brains who could put it to use.. troll...

I'll give it you, you're a decent troll. You've got a healthy dose of natural foolishness. You could go far in this trade

kai!
Listen man, you need to learn how to make your points with as few words as possible. No sense in saying in a thousand words what you can say in 100, unless you're Mr whargabl


So man, can you summarise your previous post for me? Try to do it in 250 words or less.

Logicboy03:



Guy, just give up.


Let us look at this with reason-

If the big bang resulted in just one or two galaxies, it would be enough for humans to exist.

Or look at it this way.....an assumption..if we found out that there is a galaxy outside our universe just on it's own, can we say that it wouldnt hold humans because a galaxy is not a universe?

You are not even following the thought development at all. I can not work with this, sorry.

wiegraf:

Still hard to swallow.

Surely not. You would not expect humans and other living things to exist in a void, would you? And, as far as we can see in terms of strict logic, they, since existing, would have to exist somewhere, and that somewhere could not exist if it did not also exist somewhere - to wit - a universe.

For instance, why even evolution in the first place? It's not the most surefire way of coming up with humanity; chance.

Evolution, as it truly occurred, has nothing to do with chance, my friend. It has to do, with programmed logic.

Hundreds of millions of years of throwing dice? No way a conscious intelligence was behind that. Even our breeders are more efficient. Waiting millions/billions of years for nebula to turn to stars, scouring myriad of them, fingers crossed, hoping planets in goldilucks zones spring up. Letting 99% of species die before arriving at us, why? That many were needed to die, why? Leaving us to the mercy of a meteor obliterating us, or many other possible extinction level events, events that have actually taken place on this planet. Etc etc..

You forget, ofcourse, that the creating being may not experience time in the way that we do. Even we do not experience time in the same way that other creatures right here on earth do, and so this only stands to reason. The creating being may experience your billions of years as a fraction of a second, especially as an eternal being.

These are definitely not the actions of an intelligent consciousness with the purpose being us, not at all. The personal god concept in particular is flawed no matter how you look at it.

No it is not, because evolution has no need or requirement for things like the capacity for philosophy, music, art and the varied aestheic appreciation which are key qualities of the human mind. If you think about it, you will find that there is no human being on earth who has ever lived his life on the presuppositions that you are making. Every human being from birth, has experienced life as a thinking, feeling being cognizant of a past and future, elements which are ALL recognized as immaterial realities. This is awfully personal, my friend, and you have only to pause for a second to recognize it.

Evolution has no impetus for consciousness, much less the sentient sapience that humans have.

Evolution would have no impetus for the existence of non-unicellular life, as unicellular life has always been and remains the most successful life. Not to speak about the evolution of beings cognizant of abstract concepts which have nothing to do with matter whatsoever. Evolution cannot possibly account for the existence or development of such in any coherent manner whatsoever. You would simply struggle to show the evolutionary impetus for such things: they do not exist.

Also, before you can even assert this you have to show that this universe is the only conceivable one, or at least the optimal one for whatever the purpose may be.

If you do not know the purpose, you cannot discuss the question of whether it is optimal for its purpose or not.

However, infinite universes are conceivable.

One thing I do notice however, that seems to be missing in your thought development processes is the simple fact that one thing follows upon another. You seem to expect that if God exists, it would wave a magic wand and just create all things, abracadabra. The reverse is what is true: if God exists, it would be the sum of self existent laws and as such would only proceed from logical cause to logical effect throughout eternity: as such you will only have one thing naturally and logically following another, a la evolution, and a la, the existence of the vast cosmos.

Deep Sight:


Evolution, as it truly occurred, has nothing to do with chance, my friend. It has to do, with programmed logic.

First, I am glad you admit that evolution truly occurred. So we can now remove evolution from the realm of theory to fact, according to you.
Progress.

On the second statement, you seem to be under the false assumption that programmed logic of physical laws and chance event s are somehow mutually exclusive.
Not so my friend.
The theory of Evolution does not propose that one single chance event led to all the complexities that we find in nature.
Just imagine a quadrillion chance events occurring very nano-second over the past 14 or more billion years.

The programmed logic you are referring to in this case would be the immutable laws of physics, chemistry, biology, celestial mechanics , etc.
The random and chance motions of matter and energy must conduct it's activities according to the programmed logic of the laws of physics.

So, to correct your statement:

"Evolution, as it truly occurred, has nothing everything to do with chance, my friend. It has to do, with random chance events and their reactions with programmed logic of the immutable laws of physics,chemistry, biology and Celestial mechanics".

Deep Sight:


You forget, ofcourse, that the creating being may not experience time in the way that we do. Even we do not experience time in the same way that other creatures right here on earth do, and so this only stands to reason. The creating being may experience your billions of years as a fraction of a second, especially as an eternal being.

Please ,if you cannot offer us a biography for this creative being, I suggest that Santa Clause would suffice, or better still, the almighty FSM.

Deep Sight:


No it is not, because evolution has no need or requirement for things like the capacity for philosophy, music, art and the varied aestheic appreciation which are key qualities of the human mind. If you think about it, you will find that there is no human being on earth who has ever lived his life on the presuppositions that you are making. Every human being from birth, has experienced life as a thinking, feeling being cognizant of a past and future, elements which are ALL recognized as immaterial realities. This is awfully personal, my friend, and you have only to pause for a second to recognize it.

Evolution has no impetus for consciousness, much less the sentient sapience that humans have.

You of all people still do not, or stubbornly refuse to see it for what it means.

Evolution is just changes that occurs over time. It does not set out to accomplish anything.
Rather, the accidental end products of evolution sometimes chart their courses.
For example, if evolution was through out some random numbers and figures, it could in a matter of time spew out
the equation 2x+ y =10+y
Now, the equation takes on a life of it's own by trying to balance itself.
It balances itself by finding a value for x and y.
The new values of x and y, when plotted in Cartesian coordinate, produces the image of a perfectly symmetrical leaf of a flower. Add colour, and viola, you have beauty.

So, in this hypothetical situation, random flux of numbers and letters gives us a quadratic equation that when solved and plotted, gives us a beautiful oval shape of a flower leaf. We see that evolution, the process of random flux, did not set out to create a flower, but a flower did indeed emerge as a result of the random chance events.

I just used this analogy to try show how evolution works.


Most importantly,
These are some false assumption of that people like you make about evolution.

1.You misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation

2.It is quite obvious that you,and the host of other anti-evolutionists seem to calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium , or a complex human organ such as the brain, by random events. This is not the idea.

3. You assume that there is a fixed number of random events, with fixed sequences for each event, that are required for the transformation of simple to very complex.
Wrong.

4. You calculate the probability of sequential chance events, rather than simultaneous chance events.

5. You greatly underestimate the number of particles or energy units, factors, co-factors and catalysts present in any given group of random sequential events.

By your incorrect use of statistical probability, you falsely arrive at the impression that the formation of even the smallest organ and organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

For example, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random. The chance events in this formation would be the availability of the raw materials.
So, again, we see that chance events and the programmed logic of the laws of biochemistry are not mutually exclusive.

The first "living things" would be much simpler than the simplest bacteria. Over time, these simple molecules would have slowly evolved into more co=operative self-replicating systems, finally into simple organisms , and ultimately into conscious self-aware and sentient beings.

Week so busy IRL, no vex oga.

Deep Sight:

Surely not. You would not expect humans and other living things to exist in a void, would you? And, as far as we can see in terms of strict logic, they, since existing, would have to exist somewhere, and that somewhere could not exist if it did not also exist somewhere - to wit - a universe.

Correct, but is this the most prudent universe? One meant to achieve this particular goal, that of a personal god; us. His very special children.

So long as other permutations are allowed by science and logic, obviously not.

Humanity itself creates 'heaven' in its bid to try and rationalize the flaws, haphazard crazy, etc, that is this universe. The vast majority of people who espouse 'heaven' are, more or else, admitting this universe is inherently flawed and could be improved on. Therefore; heaven! Where everything is right. Of course, as with a lot of other stuff, it's simply wishful thinking.

Deep Sight:
Evolution, as it truly occurred, has nothing to do with chance, my friend. It has to do, with programmed logic.

I couldn't put it better than @plaet did. To add though, programmed logic, true in a sense yes, but which intrinsically relies on chance. Imagine leaving everything to the chaos theory? How is that sensible in any way whatsoever as far as predictable, definite outcomes are concerned?

And on another note, even the initial programmed logic was probably subject to chaos as well. We cannot show that conclusively at the time though, so of course don't accept that as fact. But it likely was, and hence the need to show the multiverse exists (pehaps even a multiverse of multiverses sef). That would explain cosmological constants, etc.

Deep Sight:
You forget, ofcourse, that the creating being may not experience time in the way that we do. Even we do not experience time in the same way that other creatures right here on earth do, and so this only stands to reason. The creating being may experience your billions of years as a fraction of a second, especially as an eternal being.

Achieving something similar is perhaps possible even today due to SR. One could get into a rocket moving fast enough and billions of years in another time frame would have passed away. But it's still incongruous with the rest of the picture.

Evolution, etc, are intrinsically probabilistic, so fly around for billions of years (in our reference frame) and keep a tab on us, how? And to what aim? Could it not have simply bioengineered humanity and gotten it over with? It makes very little sense.

As for other options with time, like above says

plaetton:
Please ,if you cannot offer us a biography for this creative being, I suggest that Santa Clause would suffice, or better still, the almighty FSM.

It's both needless and counter-intuitive.

Deep Sight:
No it is not, because evolution has no need or requirement for things like the capacity for philosophy, music, art and the varied aestheic appreciation which are key qualities of the human mind. If you think about it, you will find that there is no human being on earth who has ever lived his life on the presuppositions that you are making. Every human being from birth, has experienced life as a thinking, feeling being cognizant of a past and future, elements which are ALL recognized as immaterial realities. This is awfully personal, my friend, and you have only to pause for a second to recognize it.

Evolution has no impetus for consciousness, much less the sentient sapience that humans have.[quote author=Deep Sight]

Evolution has no impetus for anything, that's nothing new. Even single celled life which you mention below, evolution is not compelled, in any way whatsoever, to produce it. It's just matter interacting, simple. The inevitable conclusion of simple laws.

[quote author=Deep Sight]
Evolution would have no impetus for the existence of non-unicellular life, as unicellular life has always been and remains the most successful life. Not to speak about the evolution of beings cognizant of abstract concepts which have nothing to do with matter whatsoever. Evolution cannot possibly account for the existence or development of such in any coherent manner whatsoever. You would simply struggle to show the evolutionary impetus for such things: they do not exist.

And evolution has never set out to achieve anything, it's simply what happens when certain conditions are met. It did NOT set out to create multi-cellular life, at some point in time it simply happened, just as it did with single celled life. Under a certain condition said feature (multiple cells working together) were good enough to survive in the environment, maybe even more successful than single celled life (size has been mentioned, for instance), and the rest is history. Rare perhaps, and shared ancestry supports this, but certainly not impossible. Various hypothesis about how it could have occurred, advantages, etc, on wiki.

Deep Sight:
If you do not know the purpose, you cannot discuss the question of whether it is optimal for its purpose or not.

For a personal god in particular, the purpose would be us, at least primarily. The universe would have been created just for us

Deep Sight:
However, infinite universes are conceivable.

Leading to important questions, assuming a conscious will is behind it ie. Eg, why this one?

Deep Sight:
One thing I do notice however, that seems to be missing in your thought development processes is the simple fact that one thing follows upon another. You seem to expect that if God exists, it would wave a magic wand and just create all things, abracadabra. The reverse is what is true: if God exists, it would be the sum of self existent laws and as such would only proceed from logical cause to logical effect throughout eternity: as such you will only have one thing naturally and logically following another, a la evolution, and a la, the existence of the vast cosmos.

For a personal god, it would clearly be a case of a parent abandoning offspring. Gross, gross irresponsibility.

weigraf:

And evolution has never set out to achieve anything, it's
simply what happens when certain conditions are met. It did
NOT set out to create multi-cellular life, at some point in
time it simply happened,

Fully keeping in mind the immediate context, the bolded is certainly for keeps.