₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: Lol.....like The Homer said......you are too dull to be informed

The childish brat is just an attention seeker. He thinks throwing out questions he could have looked up would make him seem intelligent.

Logicboy03: Imbe

cile

See this certified mugu wey come from jand.

Logicboy03: Ehem..............is a hemaphrodite a man or a woman?

A hermaphrodite you dunce. They either have a more prominent sexuality.

Logicboy03: Is time material or immaterial?

Immaterial.

Logicboy03: Is sampling random or non random?

It is either random or not attimes. Not both at the same time you dunce.

thehomer: This will be my last response to you here you punk child. Just go out and play with sand because that looks like all you can handle at this stage.

My explaining how gravity and magnetism affect matter won't change the fact that gravity and magnetism aren't matter but they affect matter.

I've said this before. You ignorantly tried to challenge it but decided that you would now accept what I said. If you really want to know how they affect matter, you can start by looking it up on Wikipedia. I'm not your physics teacher and I pity whoever it was that taught you or would try to teach you.

Oh shut up your dirty mouth and stinking hands. Not to talk of a muddled mind. I asked for a simple explanation and you end with a messed-up special pleading. Your physics must be poor if you can't give an explanation for how gravity and magnetism actually affect matter.

thehomer: The childish brat is just an attention seeker. He thinks throwing out questions he could have looked up would make him seem intelligent.

This senile fool still wroths in his demented state. I should look it up when you made the claim. As I said Mr, a simple explabation from you. Let's see how well this porkhead understands how gravity and magnetism.

Uyi Iredia: See this certified mugu wey come from jand.



A hermaphrodite you dunce. They either have a more prominent sexuality.



Immaterial.



It is either random or not attimes. Not both at the same time you dunce.

Lmao at the failed answers

Logicboy03: Lmao at the failed answers

You are empty umstairs. Are you a man or a woman ? Are you dead or alive ? Are you an atheist or a Catholic ?

Amateurs. Took you 6-7 posts to reduce uyi to whargarbl? I usually do that in ~2

2+2!=4 ....smh for you uyi (and no, genius, the '!' != factorial, see?)

wiegraf: Amateurs. Took you 6-7 posts to reduce uyi to whargarbl? I usually do that in ~2

2+2!=4 ....smh for you uyi (and no, genius, the '!' != factorial, see?)

If ! denotes it as a factorial the equation holds. That doesn't mean you have properly rebutted my claim where you first brought it up. I explained to, as I did thehomer, why maths involves a contradiction, in particular it violares the law of identity. Playing blind hardly reduces abything to whargarbl except your thinking.

wiegraf: Amateurs. Took you 6-7 posts to reduce uyi to whargarbl? I usually do that in ~2

2+2!=4 ....smh for you uyi (and no, genius, the '!' != factorial, see?)

You must be very good at exposing his folly. Please how do you do it? I need to learn so I can quickly shut dull people like him down.

^^^As expected, it's the first mark of a dunce never to see his folly, save those of others.

Uyi Iredia: If ! denotes it as a factorial the equation holds. That doesn't mean you have properly rebutted my claim where you first brought it up. I explained to, as I did thehomer, why maths involves a contradiction, in particular it violares the law of identity. Playing blind hardly reduces abything to whargarbl except your thinking.

Simply, is there anywhere in the universe, or any conceivable universe actually, where 2+2 != 4? Also, please show how.

thehomer: You must be very good at exposing his folly. Please how do you do it? I need to learn so I can quickly shut dull people like him down.

Take a cue from the other homer

wiki: Castellaneta's normal speaking voice has no similarity to Homer's.[8] To perform Homer's voice, Castellaneta lowers his chin to his chest,[3] and is said to "let his IQ go."

It requires practice though

wiegraf: Take a cue from the other homer



It requires practice though

LOL
Smh

wiegraf: Simply, is there anywhere in the universe, or any conceivable universe actually, where 2+2 != 4? Also, please show how.

Yes, this one. But then again I don't expect mr whargarbl to know his math. I would show how when you actually explain how my argument that arithmetic eg 1+1=2 violates the law of identity and is contradictory, is false. After that, I'll explain how using math.

Uyi Iredia: Yes, this one. But then again I don't expect mr whargarbl to know his math. I would show how when you actually explain how my argument that arithmetic eg 1+1=2 violates the law of identity and is contradictory, is false. After that, I'll explain how using math.

This guy is really deluded. Keep pretending that you're an intellectual.

wiegraf: Simply, is there anywhere in the universe, or any conceivable universe actually, where 2+2 != 4? Also, please show how.

You're trying to reason with someone who rejects reason.

thehomer: You're trying to reason with someone who rejects reason.

Goos, Goos. Ripe for the killing. The man who reasons is nought but bad season.

DeepSight:
Well this was actually a response (slightly edited) to Plaetton's thread asking if consciousness cannot be explained by evolution only, without the need for some Divine attribution. However I think that these questions merit a discussion of their own; and I believe that they are cardinal questions.

To be clear: these posers seek to show that current scientific explanation for existence as we know it alone and by itself - from the big b.ang through to evolution and mankind, does not and cannot account for life as we know it.

To be further clear: I actually believe in evolution. There must have been evolution of some sort. However I do not believe that it was blind or unguided. I believe in an evolutionary universe and an evolutionary process guided by a definite and intelligent hand.

________________________________
I have tried to adumbrate the argument against the idea that Evolution accounts for consciousness; particularly sapient and knowing consciousness of the human kind.

That which is set forth by current scientific thinking - starting with the Big B.ang and all the way through to evolution and humanity, does not account for the existence of life and consciousness as we know it today.

Perhaps I may expand on each of the points in further posts: However, I leave them in all their bare simplicity below for you and others to reflect closely on.

These are the fundamental pillars of reasoning whereat I say that current scientific thinking, from the Big Bang through to evolution, cannot, and does not account for consciousness as we know it.

The reasons are reduced to these very simple posers:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on the Big B.ang:

1. The Theory of the Big B.ang proceeds with an expansion from the point of a singularity. It does not, and cannot, address whence the singularity derives from, or why it exists at all. It does not address the question: why something instead of nothing.

2. The Theory of the Big B.ang offers no answers as to what exactly triggered the expansion from the singularity: the question as to why that event occurred is not addressed at all.

3. The Theory of the Big B.ang asserts that space began to exist with the expansion from the singularity. This fails to address the question: into what is the universe expanding, if not already existent space?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on The Theory of Evolution:

1. The Theory of Evolution does not account for first life. The origin of first life remains unknown. It is often repeated that the Theory of Evolution is not meant to address first life at all. That is understood: however - if that is the case, then the Theory of Evolution is not an explanation for life in the first place. It is absurd to try to explain the existence of life with a Theory which does not touch on the origin of life at all.

2. Since the Theory of Evolution does not explain first life, it is and remains inchoate as far as explaining our existence is concerned: for it leaves a huge gap in the overall story: to wit: the origin of life.

3. Assuming that bare matter somehow, miraculously, unguided and magically combined, and brought a living thing into existence - the first unicellular living thing/s: the principles of evolution do not account for the diversification into less successful multicellular living things. This is because evolutionary impetus works towards the extinction of less successful organisms and the propagation of more successful organisms. As such, unicellular organisms being the most successful organisms at all times, would simply and logically lack any evolutionary impetus for evolution into less successful multi-cellular organisms.

4. Assuming again, that notwithstanding the foregoing, multicellular organisms came to exist by some improbable evolutionary quirk. There remains the question of how such organisms would develop towards consciousness - with attributes such as optical, olfactory, auditory senses and senses of taste, and the like. Not to speak of the capacity for thought - and very advanced thought.

5. The faculties observed in an advanced creature such as man far exceed that which would develop based on any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. The capacities for such abstractions as advanced mathematics, philosophy, music and literature are not faculties for which any evolutionary impetus can be discerned. Man existing in a state of nature has no natural or biological need for such faculties: no need that can be explained with reference to the natural environment and the survivalist pressures it places on man.

6. The senses of conscious beings such as ourselves evince the sensory organs as tools serving a being, and not tools forming a being.

In simple terms, evolution as you read it would start with a unicellular organism, which, in reproduction, produces more complex organisms: as such: the physical matter itself which forms the organism is what the organism is, and nothing more. Basic logic denies this: for if the eventual result in advanced creatures such as us, leads to the formation of senses such as sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell, then these are faculties which a being requires to sense its environment, and not faculties existing purposelessly in a void and serving nothing but their own existence - which is what strict evolutionary logic should infer. This leads us to see that we are beings: and not simply the agglomeration of physical parts: for which evolution would have had no need or impetus in the first place.

Who is reading these words? Your eyes? Your brain? Or you? Where is that you. In your eyes? In your brain? Why is that you interested in these words? Is the brain a creature by itself that has these sorts of hobbies and interests for its own exclusive pleasure. Or is it not rather true that it is you, the complete integrated being, that uses these tools to sense and apprehend the world about it?

7. Organs such as the eye and the brain will eternally befog and defy any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. Forever. The intricacy involved is far too improbable to be countenanced by any serious thinker. Especially when considered in terms of their fitness for purpose and function. It is, actually so benumbing that it leaves the serious thinker numb, to think that others could suggest these to be the result of blind chance acting upon matter without purpose.

8. The improbability of ALL life forms, right to the simplest single cell, gives a lie to evolution as conceived by scientists. It is statistically more probable for you to fling a clump of sand into the air, and have the particles randomly form a Boeing 747, than it is for random effects on matter to form a single cell, not to speak of a single organ such as an eye, a brain, a heart, a liver, or lungs.

And when that statistical probability is then stretched to having all these organs fit neatly into one integrated body governed by one integrated super computer which is a mind of thought and reason called a brain, to deliver the existence of a living feeling, breathing thinking being, then any suggestion that all of these are random chance events acting on blind matter becomes absolutely untenable, weird, absurd, and even comical. It frankly becomes a hilarious joke.

9. Evolution does not account for the abstract realm of ideas in which every human being lives his entire life: it does not account for the existence of thoughts: which exist and are not physical things: it does not show how a physical thing may produce non-physical things: with evolution only, the existence of non physical things which derive from physical things will be absurd and untenable, because evolution works with the physical only. The existence of thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, and passions are inexplicable based on evolution only - as these are nonphysical things allegedly being produced by physical things - which evolution does not countenance.

10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

11. Evolution cannot account for the many pre programmed faculties we take for granted in our lives. It cannot account for how babies of mammals know to seek a b.reast and derive milk therein - as soon as they emerge from the womb into a world they have never known before. It does not account for how baby turtles know to head for the sea as soon as they break from their eggs. It does not account for how or why the body does not just keep growing throughout life, but stops at an age. These are pre set programs amongst billions of pre set programs obvious in life which are undeniable and which evolution alone can never account for.

12. Most of all, evolution does not account for the mind, which is the most amazing thing of all, and the wellspring of our consciousness.

13. Evolution cannot explain the phenomenon of death, and it summarily renders meaningless every human life as it refers in total to the sum of material parts forming a purposeless whole which ends in death: meaningless, purposeless walking corpses in effect.

14. The age of the Earth cannot accommodate the time span required for evolution from unicellular organism to mankind.

When one really thinks about it, one realizes just how stupendously and shockingly presumptuous and thoughtlessly shallow the position of the atheist is. It is a position of the deepest ignorance and the most breath-taking st.upidity. Most of all, it simply betrays a lack of thought: and worst of all: a lack of perception of the most basic factors of existence known to every human being instinctually from their childhood. The reasons I listed up there are but the tip of the ice berg as far as this matter is concerned, and when taken together with the preceding questions behind the big b.ang, evince the only logical conclusion that human beings of all ages have instinctively and logically known: namely the existence of a pre existent intelligence beyond ours, which is called, in a million different human languages: God.










Although all the posers above are cardinal, I would particularly like the strict materialist big b.ang exponents to give answers to the posers on the big bang, and for the strict materialist evolutionists, the posers on Evolution, Nos 1, 3, 10 and 14 above.

But please do address yourself still to all posers.

AlbertNewton

Comments?

DeepSight:
AlbertNewton

Comments?

I have some time today so let's have a look at this. Firstly for this to be fruitful, you'll need to be more specific with the questions you wish to ask and be ready to answer some questions about your own answers to your questions.

DeepSight:
Posers on the Big B.ang:

1. The Theory of the Big B.ang proceeds with an expansion from the point of a singularity. It does not, and cannot, address whence the singularity derives from, or why it exists at all. It does not address the question: why something instead of nothing.

The theory was not supposed to address this question.

DeepSight:
2. The Theory of the Big B.ang offers no answers as to what exactly triggered the expansion from the singularity: the question as to why that event occurred is not addressed at all.

Again the theory wasn't to address this question.

DeepSight:
3. The Theory of the Big B.ang asserts that space began to exist with the expansion from the singularity. This fails to address the question: into what is the universe expanding, if not already existent space?

This is a malformed question based on the failure of your imagination. You confuse the nature of the entire universe itself to the nature of a part of the universe. A balloon being inflated will expand into surrounding air. The universe itself will simply expand.

Do you think the universe itself is expanding into already existent space?

DeepSight:
1. The Theory of Evolution does not account for first life. The origin of first life remains unknown. It is often repeated that the Theory of Evolution is not meant to address first life at all. That is understood: however - if that is the case, then the Theory of Evolution is not an explanation for life in the first place. It is absurd to try to explain the existence of life with a Theory which does not touch on the origin of life at all.

It was not supposed to account for the first life. You state you understand this yet try to force the theory to do more than it is supposed to do. The Continental drift theory which explains the shape of the continents doesn't explain the origin of the earth itself.

DeepSight:
3. Assuming that bare matter somehow, miraculously, unguided and magically combined, and brought a living thing into existence - the first unicellular living thing/s: the principles of evolution do not account for the diversification into less successful multicellular living things. This is because evolutionary impetus works towards the extinction of less successful organisms and the propagation of more successful organisms. As such, unicellular organisms being the most successful organisms at all times, would simply and logically lack any evolutionary impetus for evolution into less successful multi-cellular organisms.

The theory of evolution does account or the diversity of life. The propagation of more successful organisms will mean the extinction of other organisms. Multi-cellular organisms aren't less successful.

Why do you think there are unicellular and multicellular organisms?

DeepSight:
10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

Actually sexual reproduction is explained by evolution. Why it happened is also explained by the theory of evolution. Exactly how it happened is lost in the mists of time.

DeepSight:
14. The age of the Earth cannot accommodate the time span required for evolution from unicellular organism to mankind.

When one really thinks about it, one realizes just how stupendously and shockingly presumptuous and thoughtlessly shallow the position of the atheist is. It is a position of the deepest ignorance and the most breath-taking st.upidity. Most of all, it simply betrays a lack of thought: and worst of all: a lack of perception of the most basic factors of existence known to every human being instinctually from their childhood. The reasons I listed up there are but the tip of the ice berg as far as this matter is concerned, and when taken together with the preceding questions behind the big b.ang, evince the only logical conclusion that human beings of all ages have instinctively and logically known: namely the existence of a pre existent intelligence beyond ours, which is called, in a million different human languages: God.

How old do you think the earth is?

@ thehomer - Is it really same you from years back?

I mean, your penultimate post on this thread was 12 years ago!

DeepSight:
@ thehomer - Is it really same you from years back?

I mean, your penultimate post on this thread was 12 years ago!

What do you think?

thehomer:
What do you think?

Sure seems to be you and that meets me with immense happiness has there has been a dearth of quality discussants on this board for years now.
You were always able to make serious points with great brevity. Master of one-line rebuttals.

I will briefly respond to your post now. Christ. After 12 years!

thehomer:
The theory was not supposed to address this question.

Again the theory wasn't to address this question.

Regardless, the point remains that the theory should therefore not be taken by anyone as an explanation of existential questions of origin as far as the universe is concerned.

This is a malformed question based on the failure of your imagination. You confuse the nature of the entire universe itself to the nature of a part of the universe. A balloon being inflated will expand into surrounding air. The universe itself will simply expand.

This is an absurdity. A thing cannot expand into nothingness and nothingness cannot even exist.

Do you think the universe itself is expanding into already existent space?

Yes. It could not reasonably be otherwise.

It was not supposed to account for the first life. You state you understand this yet try to force the theory to do more than it is supposed to do. The Continental drift theory which explains the shape of the continents doesn't explain the origin of the earth itself.

As with the BBT mentioned above, its just a note to clarify to those who don't understand - or those who assume that evolution explains life - that it does not.

The theory of evolution does account or the diversity of life. The propagation of more successful organisms will mean the extinction of other organisms. Multi-cellular organisms aren't less successful.

Multi-cellular organisms are evidently not only less successful in terms of number but also require more complicated systems in every respect.

Why do you think there are unicellular and multicellular organisms?

Well in the same way as there is a theory of directed panspermia in terms of how life came to the Earth, I subscribe to what call directed evolution.

Actually sexual reproduction is explained by evolution. Why it happened is also explained by the theory of evolution. Exactly how it happened is lost in the mists of time.

Most emphatically sexual reproduction is NOT explained by evolution. I created a thread years back where I questioned this and will replicate the questions in a next post for ease of reference.

https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction

How old do you think the earth is?

Hundreds of millions of years.

@ Thehomer -

Reproduced from questions I laid out years ago on the evolution of sexual reproduction.

------


1. Why were the first unicellular organisms (which supposedly arose spontaenously from some pre biotic soup - [proposition not within ToE]) self replicating organisms at all?

2. If they were not self-replicating organisms, what factor led them to evolve the faculties of self replication at all.

3. If they were not self-replicating in nature, after first coming into existence, then they would have died, and the existence of any other such would depend on fresh flukes supposedly in some pre biotic soups.

4. Why is life self replicating at all? What accounts for this?

5. Further down the evolutionary path (and with great astonishing bounds and leaps of faith, I might add), why did se.xual organisms evolve?

6. In the case of se.xual organisms, which sex evolved first - male or female. Or did they evolve simultaenously, and how and why so? What evolutionary impetus drove this process, what caused this to happen at all. Or did females evolve from males only or males from females only or both from sexually neutral organisms?

7. Is it possible for a sexually neutral organism to evolve into two different and complimentary sexes?

8. Taken that separate sexes emerge, what evolutionary impetus drives and informs the aggregation of reproductive se.men in one sex while simultaneously driving the formation of a se.xual reproductive system complete with a womb in the other sex?

9. Further on, what evolutionary impetus would be responsible for the development of the pe.nis and testicles for the male, and simultaneously form the (admittedly eminently fit for purpose) va.gina and womb for the female?

10. What evolutionary process would cause the bodies to evolve such DNA transfer mechanisms as to be able to create the full copy of a complete creature through a se.xual process? What evolutionary impetus leads to this? What evolutionary explanation would there be for the coming to existence of umbilical cords?

11. What evolutionary pressure at the same time as all this also led to the formation of mammary glands (br.easts) for the female only, suitable for the nutrition of new born babies?

12. Where it is explained that men and women have all the foregoing se.xual differences on account of differences in hormones, what evolutionary explanation is there for the difference in hormones in the first place? And with this last question bear in mind that if they were not male and female already, there would be no separate male and female needs to drive such evolution of separate and different hormonal systems ab initio!

A careful dwelling on each of these questions from the standpoint of the holistic supposed process of evolution - and in line with the principles of evolution as taught, is that which you guys need to do: and therewith see with immediate clarity that which I contend, namely that these are phenomena completely outside the purview of any evolutionary principles whatsoever, which is why they do not have any possible evolutionary explanation.

DeepSight:
Sure seems to be you and that meets me with immense happiness has there has been a dearth of quality discussants on this board for years now.
You were always able to make serious points with great brevity. Master of one-line rebuttals.

I will briefly respond to your post now. Christ. After 12 years!

What can I say? Life happens. Glad to be a source of happiness.

DeepSight:
Regardless, the point remains that the theory should therefore not be taken by anyone as an explanation of existential questions of origin as far as the universe is concerned.

It isn't taken as such. I know I haven't done that.

DeepSight:
This is an absurdity. A thing cannot expand into nothingness and nothingness cannot even exist.

Another way of putting it is that the universe is expanding. No need to talk about it expanding into anything or nothing.

DeepSight:
Yes. It could not reasonably be otherwise.

This space it is expanding into, what are its properties? Does it contain atoms, quarks, men?

DeepSight:
As with the BBT mentioned above, its just a note to clarify to those who don't understand - or those who assume that evolution explains life - that it does not.

Ok

DeepSight:
Multi-cellular organisms are evidently not only less successful in terms of number but also require more complicated systems in every respect.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. There are more bacteria in your gut than the entire earth. Why would more complicated mean less successful?

DeepSight:
Well in the same way as there is a theory of directed panspermia in terms of how life came to the Earth, I subscribe to what call directed evolution.

In this directed evolution? What is the aim of this idea of evolution? Unicellular organisms?

DeepSight:
Most emphatically sexual reproduction is NOT explained by evolution. I created a thread years back where I questioned this and will replicate the questions in a next post for ease of reference.

https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction

Have you read up on the current knowledge of the topic?


How old do you think the earth is?

DeepSight:
Hundreds of millions of years.

How did you arrive at this figure?

DeepSight:
@ Thehomer -

Reproduced from questions I laid out years ago on the evolution of sexual reproduction.

------


1. Why were the first unicellular organisms (which supposedly arose spontaenously from some pre biotic soup - [proposition not within ToE]) self replicating organisms at all?

2. If they were not self-replicating organisms, what factor led them to evolve the faculties of self replication at all.

3. If they were not self-replicating in nature, after first coming into existence, then they would have died, and the existence of any other such would depend on fresh flukes supposedly in some pre biotic soups.

4. Why is life self replicating at all? What accounts for this?

5. Further down the evolutionary path (and with great astonishing bounds and leaps of faith, I might add), why did se.xual organisms evolve?

6. In the case of se.xual organisms, which sex evolved first - male or female. Or did they evolve simultaenously, and how and why so? What evolutionary impetus drove this process, what caused this to happen at all. Or did females evolve from males only or males from females only or both from sexually neutral organisms?

7. Is it possible for a sexually neutral organism to evolve into two different and complimentary sexes?

8. Taken that separate sexes emerge, what evolutionary impetus drives and informs the aggregation of reproductive se.men in one sex while simultaneously driving the formation of a se.xual reproductive system complete with a womb in the other sex?

9. Further on, what evolutionary impetus would be responsible for the development of the pe.nis and testicles for the male, and simultaneously form the (admittedly eminently fit for purpose) va.gina and womb for the female?

10. What evolutionary process would cause the bodies to evolve such DNA transfer mechanisms as to be able to create the full copy of a complete creature through a se.xual process? What evolutionary impetus leads to this? What evolutionary explanation would there be for the coming to existence of umbilical cords?

11. What evolutionary pressure at the same time as all this also led to the formation of mammary glands (br.easts) for the female only, suitable for the nutrition of new born babies?

12. Where it is explained that men and women have all the foregoing se.xual differences on account of differences in hormones, what evolutionary explanation is there for the difference in hormones in the first place? And with this last question bear in mind that if they were not male and female already, there would be no separate male and female needs to drive such evolution of separate and different hormonal systems ab initio!

A careful dwelling on each of these questions from the standpoint of the holistic supposed process of evolution - and in line with the principles of evolution as taught, is that which you guys need to do: and therewith see with immediate clarity that which I contend, namely that these are phenomena completely outside the purview of any evolutionary principles whatsoever, which is why they do not have any possible evolutionary explanation.

Let's first deal with one part of the discussion.

thehomer:
Another way of putting it is that the universe is expanding. No need to talk about it expanding into anything or nothing.

Please task yourself on the rationality of this. Because now you are saying that a thing expands without expanding into either anything or nothing. If this is not the same kind of voodoo we accuse religious people of, what else is?

How can a thing expand neither into anything or nothing?

You know that is an absurd statement.

An expansion of anykind presupposes space available for such an expansion.

This only stands to reason.

Frankly this question has always led to the most absurd answers even from the most acclaimed scientists, such as Lawrence Krauss.

This space it is expanding into, what are its properties? Does it contain atoms, quarks, men?

It is not possible to know its properties, but it is certain that no expansion can occur without space to expand into.
This is the same way in which we can infer the existence of dark matter without knowing what it consists of.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. There are more bacteria in your gut than the entire earth. Why would more complicated mean less successful?

Let us leave this question for when we come to the evolution of sexual reproduction, as it is part of it.

In this directed evolution? What is the aim of this idea of evolution? Unicellular organisms?

From all that we can observe, consciousness will appear to be the aim.

Have you read up on the current knowledge of the topic?

Yes - not unless there are very new and recent developments.

How did you arrive at this figure?

From the current best estimates of mainstream science - the same which assess the age of the universe at about 14 billion years.
(PS: Its over four billion years old)

DeepSight:
Please task yourself on the rationality of this. Because now you are saying that a thing expands without expanding into either anything or nothing. If this is not the same kind of voodoo we accuse religious people of, what else is?

How can a thing expand neither into anything or nothing?

You know that is an absurd statement.

An expansion of anykind presupposes space available for such an expansion.

This only stands to reason.

Frankly this question has always led to the most absurd answers even from the most acclaimed scientists, such as Lawrence Krauss.

The universe is a special case.

DeepSight:
It is not possible to know its properties, but it is certain that no expansion can occur without space to expand into.
This is the same way in which we can infer the existence of dark matter without knowing what it consists of.

How do you know this? Is this because you've observed expansion of bodies within the universe?
We should be able to know something about its properties as it will have to interact with this universe. Afterall, the universe will be pushing that material out of the way wouldn't it?

DeepSight:
Let us leave this question for when we come to the evolution of sexual reproduction, as it is part of it.

Ok

DeepSight:
From all that we can observe, consciousness will appear to be the aim.

But according to you, the most successful organisms which are unicellular are not conscious. Lots multicellular organisms aren't conscious either. Are you arriving at this conculsion because you're a conscious human?

DeepSight:
Yes - not unless there are very new and recent developments.

Good to know.

DeepSight:
From the current best estimates of mainstream science - the same which assess the age of the universe at about 14 billion years.
(PS: Its over four billion years old)

To be clear, you think 4 billion years isn't enough time for evolution.

thehomer:
The universe is a special case.

And yet one such as you would be quick to censure a religionist for special pleading.

Why can you not prove or substantiate exactly what exempts the universe from such iron cast logic?

It is not sufficient to mouth all the platitudes physcists and cosmologists do in saying that "the laws of physics breakdown" the closer one gets to the singularity, etc. It must be shown exactly how and why - and that it even happens at all in the first place. Beyond this, this matter of the question of what the universe expands into is so basic and fundamental that the usual ruse about the laws of physics breaking down simply cannot suffice to side step it.

How do you know this? Is this because you've observed expansion of bodies within the universe?
We should be able to know something about its properties as it will have to interact with this universe. Afterall, the universe will be pushing that material out of the way wouldn't it?

I dont know whether or not it will be pushing that material "out of the way." What is iron-clad is that nothing can expand without space. Such a statement is inherently self contradictory.

The very word "expand" in a physical sense already connotes growth into larger space. No one can logically speak of a physical expansion without larger space. It is impossible.

Ordinarily, no one would argue this point save for the fact that you all see the problem: that it represents a challenge to the existing scientific model of the existence of the universe, and thus, exactly as religionists would do when their theology is challenged, you come up with absurdities and special pleadings.

But according to you, the most successful organisms which are unicellular are not conscious. Lots multicellular organisms aren't conscious either. Are you arriving at this conculsion because you're a conscious human?

All organisms are conscious to varying degrees.

To be clear, you think 4 billion years isn't enough time for evolution.

Yes. The sort of changes described within the ToE would require next to an eternity to move from a unicellular organism to a human being. It would be akin to a monkey seeking to win a chess game by random moves or a monkey writing the complete works of Shakespeare by picking random letters one at a time from a bag.

This does not mean I am saying that evolution works by chance. I am explaining probabilities and timelines involved.

DeepSight:
And yet one such as you would be quick to censure a religionist for special pleading.

That will depend on the context.

DeepSight:
Why can you not prove or substantiate exactly what exempts the universe from such iron cast logic?

It is not sufficient to mouth all the platitudes physcists and cosmologists do in saying that "the laws of physics breakdown" the closer one gets to the singularity, etc. It must be shown exactly how and why - and that it even happens at all in the first place. Beyond this, this matter of the question of what the universe expands into is so basic and fundamental that the usual ruse about the laws of physics breaking down simply cannot suffice to side step it.

You're demonstrating the fallacy of composition

https://fallacyfiles.org/composit.html

The fact that within the universe, an object like a balloon expands into surrounding matter doesn't mean it applies to the universe as a whole.

Saying that the special state of the universe in the first few seconds can't be demonstrated today therefore all the calculations that went into understanding and explaining that special state must be wrong is an example of extreme hubris. You seem to think your ignorance of physics is as good as the expertise of physicists who have studied and explained these phenomena.

DeepSight:
I dont know whether or not it will be pushing that material "out of the way." What is iron-clad is that nothing can expand without space. Such a statement is inherently self contradictory.

You're being self contradictory. I'm not sure if this is deliberate on your part. If the universe is expanding into something, then material has to be pushed out of the way. "Nothing" is an absence. You're writing here as if it is a presence.

DeepSight:
The very word "expand" in a physical sense already connotes growth into larger space. No one can logically speak of a physical expansion without larger space. It is impossible.

Ordinarily, no one would argue this point save for the fact that you all see the problem: that it represents a challenge to the existing scientific model of the existence of the universe, and thus, exactly as religionists would do when their theology is challenged, you come up with absurdities and special pleadings.

In cosmology in reference to the expansion of the universe, "expand" means that bodies within the universe are moving away from each other. Not that there is some extra material outside the universe being moved out of the way.
You haven't provided an actual challenge to the existing scientific model because you're unqualified to do so and in your ignorance, you seem to think you've provided some special solution.

Can you clearly state what your model of the existence of the universe is? And how do you explain the observed expansion?

DeepSight:
All organisms are conscious to varying degrees.

To be clear, you think a brain isn't needed for consciousness. What organ would you say is necessary for consciousness?

DeepSight:
Yes. The sort of changes described within the ToE would require next to an eternity to move from a unicellular organism to a human being. It would be akin to a monkey seeking to win a chess game by random moves or a monkey writing the complete works of Shakespeare by picking random letters one at a time from a bag.

This does not mean I am saying that evolution works by chance. I am explaining probabilities and timelines involved.

You're demonstrating that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Again you think your ignorance is as good as the expertise of millions of actual scientists.

How would you say the theory of evolution explains the common ancestry between gorillas and chimpanzees?

thehomer:
You're demonstrating the fallacy of composition

https://fallacyfiles.org/composit.html

The fact that within the universe, an object like a balloon expands into surrounding matter doesn't mean it applies to the universe as a whole.

Saying that the special state of the universe in the first few seconds can't be demonstrated today therefore all the calculations that went into understanding and explaining that special state must be wrong is an example of extreme hubris. You seem to think your ignorance of physics is as good as the expertise of physicists who have studied and explained these phenomena.

Except this (especially the bold) bears no resemblance to what I actually said. If we are to have a discussion, please try not to misquote or misrepresent me.

You're being self contradictory. I'm not sure if this is deliberate on your part. If the universe is expanding into something, then material has to be pushed out of the way.

It is very unlike you to make assumptions. Because here you are assuming that the space must be of such a solid nature that it must be pushed away. How do you know it cannot be permeated?

Secondly, even if it is in fact pushed away, how is that an issue? Yes of course in that event it must move on into some other space. And then how does that become an issue. Do you know or do you want to circumscribe the limits of all infinite space in extant reality?

In cosmology in reference to the expansion of the universe, "expand" means that bodies within the universe are moving away from each other. Not that there is some extra material outside the universe being moved out of the way.

It still befuddles me that you imagine bodies moving away from one another does not imply that they must be moving into existing space of some sort or the other. Anything else is so beyond illogical that it is worse than any voodoo thinking you can ever accuse any religionist of. Tell me, how does the fact that it is "bodies" moving away from one another change the fact that they must move somewhere?

How is movement even possible without space to move into?

Does this make any sense to you?

It seems to me that just the way the religious will believe absurd "miracles" because their pastors claim them, you will also believe any absurdity you read from the priests of science.

Frankly I am not going to go back and forth on this eternally. It is clear that there can neither be movement nor expansion of any kind without space.

If you wish to delude yourself in such an illogicality, that is your business.

Can you clearly state what your model of the existence of the universe is? And how do you explain the observed expansion?

I am no cosmologist or physicist and I dont have any special model of the universe of my own - I am just telling you something which can never be logically controverted, that any movement of any kind requires existing space.

Therefore, to the extent that the initial expansion which is called the big bang was movement, was an expansion, then there must have been already existing space and therefore space cannot be said to have been created by the bang.

Also to the extent that it was an event, and events can only occur in an already existing timeline then time could not be said to have been created by the bang either.

Summarily, whatever the scientists are referring to as space-time is actualy something else. They have simply appropriated that term.

Conscisely: I am saying -

1. There cannot be any movement without existing space - and -
2. There cannot be any event without existing time

Therefore -

Since the big bang was an event and involved movement, both time and space must have already existed.

Beat this logic.

To be clear, you think a brain isn't needed for consciousness. What organ would you say is necessary for consciousness?

Why would a brain be needed for consciousness, even plants are conscious. What do you understand by consciousness?

You're demonstrating that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Again you think your ignorance is as good as the expertise of millions of actual scientists.

These kinds of responses are insufficient and quite tiresome.