|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku claims to have developed a theory that might point to the existence of God. The information has created a great stir in the scientific community because Kaku is considered one of the most important scientists of our times, one of the creators and developers of the revolutionary String Theory which is highly respected throughout the world. To to come to his conclusions, the physicist made & #8203;& #8203;use of what he calls “primitive semi – radius tachyons “. Tachyons are theoretical particles capable to “unstick ” the Universe matter or vacuum space between matter particles, leaving everything free from the influences of the surrounding universe. After conducting the tests, Kaku came to the conclusion that we live in a “Matrix”. “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, he affirmed. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.” “To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.” |
Darwin was baffled after spending a great deal of time on the workings of the eye. The permutations and "beneficial" mutations of genes, etc., that caused nothingness to develop perfect sight with a lens that instantly focuses at varying distances and then translates everything to the brain blew his mind.
He told his comrade Tom Huxley, "look at this - everything we see in nature and in life is perfectly designed. How can that be? There should be untold millions of specimens that are in the early stages of evolution and at every stage, yet everything appears a finished product" As he pondered the extraordinary perfection of nature with his friend, Huxley interrupted him with his own troubling thoughts and replied, "as incredibly complicated as it seems, it just doubles in complexity when you try to figure out why it requires two opposing genders for the process to proceed."
That in itself is proof of nothing other than Darwin himself had skepticism of his own hypothesis and was troubled with the idea of how nothingness could become designed with such incredibly complexity and perfection when the driving mechanics behind it is sheer chaos and chance. It's like a category 5 hurricane blowing through a junk yard and leaving behind a perfectly built F-18 fighter jet from parts created by the wind.
I'm reminded of the articulate and brilliant Bertrand Russell's bleak pronouncement of human life when he stated: "That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins. All these things if not beyond dispute, are so certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand."
In order to give credit to chaos and accidental "beneficial" mutations of genes over an incredible amount of time in the creation of the perfection that is the human race and all of nature, takes an incredible amount of faith. I understand that people like to associate themselves with the subject of science as it is a prestigious field of study for which most people are not only novices, but most are completely uneducated in the field. It seems almost magical and those without great understanding of the sciences tend to almost worship it as fact. Science grows in understanding as certain "scientific laws" are proven and established - there are quite a few. When it comes to the origin of life and our existence, it is based entirely on hypotheses and conjecture...hypotheses which are oftentimes called theories as the term theory holds more weight. But it is still conjecture no matter how many fancy names are given to it.
Our existence cannot be explained and proven by science or religion. So it's up to each individual to deal with the subject on their own. And again, it won't be settled on a sports message board.
Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.
Why would you, or anyone, need to prove or disprove if a God created the universe? It seems to be a zero-sum game.
Quote:
From my perspective, it appears that evangelicals are the group most likely to impose their views on society. See the Cruz supporters, the Kansas state school board, etc, etc as examples
Absolutely, and it goes back a long time that way.
Yet recently one can easily find lots of people who take a certain pleasure in belittling those who've chosen to believe in God. It's a shame and evidence that too many people consider their knowledge superior, not just those who blindly exercise faith.
Wrong. They consider the blind exercise of faith to be a clear and present danger.
I've been on record before saying this, but I truly feel that pushing religion is one of the most backwards element of society. Keep in mind, that is different from faith. Pushing religion often takes the form of a "truth in numbers" aspect. That the more people who believe the same - the truer the belief is. And it is unfallingly black and white. Several mainstream religions believe that you either are behind their Creed 100% or you are a non-believer. Frankly, I'm not sure how so many supposedly intelligent people get roped into that type of system.
I wouldn't have the audacity to tell people what they HAVE to believe, especially in matters that are unproven.
Frankly, in the grand scheme of things, understanding the origins of the Universe is nothing more than a fascinating topic. We will still live and die as we would absent that information. Yet there are millions of people who not only will tell you how the world was created, they will fight you to the death for believing otherwise - or at least wish death upon you.
So I'll just say this and won't debate it any further. Others can state their ideas and opinions but I won't respond. I think the reason we're here is to learn. This is a school and when we've learned everything we need to learn, we return to a higher dimension. Suffering is a result of our own actions, either actions in this life or a previous one. God set up the spiritual law of Karma, just as he/she set up the physical law of gravity. That's my take on it.
Yours is an example of a person who seems to have a strong Faith, yet doesn't feel the need to push it on others or even to give the specifics of why you changed your beliefs. You were simply addressing the topic at hand.
People often mistake my opinions on religion as me not believing. I very much have Faith - but a personal faith that doesn't necessarily fit within an organized religion's take. I'm not on Earth to be a blind follower - I'm on Earth to be a student and to learn. You put it much better than that.
Good point. I have been in debates on the subject since the early 80's and have sat on college debate teams and discussed the subject relentlessly for decades. The biggest change in the last 40 years is in terminology. In the old days, the term "evolution" simply meant the whole process from life suddenly bursting from dead matter in some ancient primordial goop to all the beauty that is the world around us today. Terms such as "speciation" and "adaptation" have been lumped into a new term known as "micro-evolution". Meanwhile, a new term called "macro-evolution" consists of the whole enchilada from nothingness to everything we see today which traditionally has simply been called, "evolution".
That would be fine, because micro-evolution has scientific validity based on many studies. It explains why humans for generations near the equator have developed more sun fighting melanin in their skin than those whose ancestry spent thousands of years closer to the polar caps. It explains why Eskimos have thick ears and thick cheeks that help them battle extreme cold and why waterfowl develop webbing between their toes. Life forms do indeed adapt to their environment. Unfortunately for the die-hard Darwinist, it doesn't change the fact that individuals with differences based on their ancestral environment are still humans of the same species and modern ducks compared to ancient ducks are still ducks.
Herein lies the problem. Many scientists (mostly done on purpose) love to say, "evolution is proven" which is a meaningless statement because what they are really saying is that "micro-evolution is proven". Macro-evolution on the other hand is based on postulation and guessing while force fitting all clues into a preconceived model as though the model is proven.
To a non-science educated novice on the street, they only know about the now-defunct term called "evolution", which is last century's terminology that has the old "spontaneous generation" (now re-termed "abiogenisis" but is the same thing) where a single celled life form sprang into existence and billions of years later grew into a body with eyes, ears, brains, reproductive organs, and a wide variety of senses. That is now called "macro-evolution". So when someone says "evolution is proven", the person either has no clue or is purposely trying to persuade a novice into a believer in the old defunct model. It is always necessary in science now to ask, "are you talking micro or macro evolution?" because the term scientific evolution is utterly meaningless without the prefix. As a sports metaphor, it's like understanding how a football is made and then declaring that because you know how a football is constructed, the NY Football Giants have won every game they have ever played and always will win and never lose in the future.
Another misleading term is "the missing link". An honest scientist who works in the field of anthropology, paleontology, etc., knows that there is a "link", but a missing chain. Hence the development of a newer hypothesis called punctuated equilibrium to explain why the connection from ancient life forms to modern life forms do not exist.
I just want to shout out to my BBI brethren that I sincerely thank you for keeping this civil.
I just want to shout out to my BBI brethren that I sincerely thank you for keeping this civil.
I'm not sure how seriously it was ever taken and I know several doctoral scientists that still argue its validity. Regardless, once Harvard professor and world renown Stephen Jay Gould and his sidekick Niles Edridge endorsed punctualism (Punctuated Equilibrium), it gained quite a following for awhile as Gould was the leading scientist in the world in the field of paleontology. I believe it is still being thrown out there as an opposing view to gradualism as an alternative theory.
Gould studied more fossils than the next 50 paleontologists combined and found no connection between species in a gradualistic sense and basically took off with Ernst Mayr's earlier theory that had been ridiculed. Just before Gould died, he did an interview and was asked, "what will you ask God if you discover there was a God after all?" He responded, "I will ask Him, why didn't you give us more information to work with", which I always found rather humorous
Quote:
Not just on BBI but talking to people, other websites, etc., I find that a large number of folks don't know the difference between "Evolution" and "Natural Selection" and use the terms interchangeably. I'm a firm believer in the latter.
Good point. I have been in debates on the subject since the early 80's and have sat on college debate teams and discussed the subject relentlessly for decades. The biggest change in the last 40 years is in terminology. In the old days, the term "evolution" simply meant the whole process from life suddenly bursting from dead matter in some ancient primordial goop to all the beauty that is the world around us today. Terms such as "speciation" and "adaptation" have been lumped into a new term known as "micro-evolution". Meanwhile, a new term called "macro-evolution" consists of the whole enchilada from nothingness to everything we see today which traditionally has simply been called, "evolution".
That would be fine, because micro-evolution has scientific validity based on many studies. It explains why humans for generations near the equator have developed more sun fighting melanin in their skin than those whose ancestry spent thousands of years closer to the polar caps. It explains why Eskimos have thick ears and thick cheeks that help them battle extreme cold and why waterfowl develop webbing between their toes. Life forms do indeed adapt to their environment. Unfortunately for the die-hard Darwinist, it doesn't change the fact that individuals with differences based on their ancestral environment are still humans of the same species and modern ducks compared to ancient ducks are still ducks.
Herein lies the problem. Many scientists (mostly done on purpose) love to say, "evolution is proven" which is a meaningless statement because what they are really saying is that "micro-evolution is proven". Macro-evolution on the other hand is based on postulation and guessing while force fitting all clues into a preconceived model as though the model is proven.
To a non-science educated novice on the street, they only know about the now-defunct term called "evolution", which is last century's terminology that has the old "spontaneous generation" (now re-termed "abiogenisis" but is the same thing) where a single celled life form sprang into existence and billions of years later grew into a body with eyes, ears, brains, reproductive organs, and a wide variety of senses. That is now called "macro-evolution". So when someone says "evolution is proven", the person either has no clue or is purposely trying to persuade a novice into a believer in the old defunct model. It is always necessary in science now to ask, "are you talking micro or macro evolution?" because the term scientific evolution is utterly meaningless without the prefix. As a sports metaphor, it's like understanding how a football is made and then declaring that because you know how a football is constructed, the NY Football Giants have won every game they have ever played and always will win and never lose in the future.
Another misleading term is "the missing link". An honest scientist who works in the field of anthropology, paleontology, etc., knows that there is a "link", but a missing chain. Hence the development of a newer hypothesis called punctuated equilibrium to explain why the connection from ancient life forms to modern life forms do not exist.
You use the basically outdated term "Darwinist" . That is a term that creationists generally use. Out of curiousity do you believe in what you call macroevolution and are you a creationist? Just would like to know where you are coming from.
Quote:
In comment 12987844 mrvax said:
Quote:
Not just on BBI but talking to people, other websites, etc., I find that a large number of folks don't know the difference between "Evolution" and "Natural Selection" and use the terms interchangeably. I'm a firm believer in the latter.
Good point. I have been in debates on the subject since the early 80's and have sat on college debate teams and discussed the subject relentlessly for decades. The biggest change in the last 40 years is in terminology. In the old days, the term "evolution" simply meant the whole process from life suddenly bursting from dead matter in some ancient primordial goop to all the beauty that is the world around us today. Terms such as "speciation" and "adaptation" have been lumped into a new term known as "micro-evolution". Meanwhile, a new term called "macro-evolution" consists of the whole enchilada from nothingness to everything we see today which traditionally has simply been called, "evolution".
That would be fine, because micro-evolution has scientific validity based on many studies. It explains why humans for generations near the equator have developed more sun fighting melanin in their skin than those whose ancestry spent thousands of years closer to the polar caps. It explains why Eskimos have thick ears and thick cheeks that help them battle extreme cold and why waterfowl develop webbing between their toes. Life forms do indeed adapt to their environment. Unfortunately for the die-hard Darwinist, it doesn't change the fact that individuals with differences based on their ancestral environment are still humans of the same species and modern ducks compared to ancient ducks are still ducks.
Herein lies the problem. Many scientists (mostly done on purpose) love to say, "evolution is proven" which is a meaningless statement because what they are really saying is that "micro-evolution is proven". Macro-evolution on the other hand is based on postulation and guessing while force fitting all clues into a preconceived model as though the model is proven.
To a non-science educated novice on the street, they only know about the now-defunct term called "evolution", which is last century's terminology that has the old "spontaneous generation" (now re-termed "abiogenisis" but is the same thing) where a single celled life form sprang into existence and billions of years later grew into a body with eyes, ears, brains, reproductive organs, and a wide variety of senses. That is now called "macro-evolution". So when someone says "evolution is proven", the person either has no clue or is purposely trying to persuade a novice into a believer in the old defunct model. It is always necessary in science now to ask, "are you talking micro or macro evolution?" because the term scientific evolution is utterly meaningless without the prefix. As a sports metaphor, it's like understanding how a football is made and then declaring that because you know how a football is constructed, the NY Football Giants have won every game they have ever played and always will win and never lose in the future.
Another misleading term is "the missing link". An honest scientist who works in the field of anthropology, paleontology, etc., knows that there is a "link", but a missing chain. Hence the development of a newer hypothesis called punctuated equilibrium to explain why the connection from ancient life forms to modern life forms do not exist.
My thoughts are that microevolution and macroevolution are pretty much the same thing and artificially make some sort of difference by the number of generations involved. You can see evolution in certain organisms directly because of their generation rate but you cannot see it for a duck or human because it is slower. Still the same thing. You talk about a duck being a duck or a human being a human. Is a wolf a dog! Is a Neanderthal s homo sapien?Is a crocodile an alligator? Things spectate at different rates. As time goes by separated parts of a species start to lose the ability to procreate together sometimes being able to but leaving barren offspring and eventually not interbreed at all. You can call two separate species of duck both ducks but that is just a name we give them for convenience. They are really not the same thing orduck and eventually if separately long enough in different environments might not even look like what we call ducks.
You use the basically outdated term "Darwinist" . That is a term that creationists generally use. Out of curiousity do you believe in what you call macroevolution and are you a creationist? Just would like to know where you are coming from.
I use the term "Darwinist" because I believe traditional evolution as taught in the last century to be little more than another religion with a different godhead. So you are pretty astute to pick that out of my ramblings. And yes, I am a born again Christian. I do not consider myself "religious", but rather "spiritual". I believe if religion is man's organized attempt to find God. If one is spiritual, he's already found God and avoids the ceremonial stuff related to organized religion. I believe that any organization that has a hierarchy of power and positions, and money is involved, will invariably become corrupt over time. I keep my life simple by praying, studying the Bible in depth, and enjoying all the nature this world has to offer.
I have debated for years on this subject including at Cornell (which is very close to my home) and several other universities. I do not argue favorably for creation or any other explanation of our being (Panspermia, Classic Gradualism, Punctualism, etc.), but play the role of Socrates and simply question everything. I do not get offended by people who don't agree with me, but I get surprised at how people are often offended if I don't agree with them. Seems weird to me as none of us have a corner on knowledge - especially concerning our existence in the first place. In my opinion, no matter how life started and how we got here, it had to be "supernatural", and by that I simply mean, a method that is in direct contrast to the laws of nature. Whether someone wants to credit an unseen intelligence with a guiding hand or a "lucky break in infinite chaos" matters little to me. I just like the subject matter.
FYI, my degrees are in engineering, math and statistics with a lot of college level courses in most of the sciences. However, I believe there is nothing a person can learn in college that can't be learned for free by doing hard research and studying in a good library. I'm no expert, just a man with a million questions and have been on a quest for answers my whole life.
Quote:
In comment 12987908 mavric said:
Quote:
In comment 12987844 mrvax said:
Quote:
Not just on BBI but talking to people, other websites, etc., I find that a large number of folks don't know the difference between "Evolution" and "Natural Selection" and use the terms interchangeably. I'm a firm believer in the latter.
Good point. I have been in debates on the subject since the early 80's and have sat on college debate teams and discussed the subject relentlessly for decades. The biggest change in the last 40 years is in terminology. In the old days, the term "evolution" simply meant the whole process from life suddenly bursting from dead matter in some ancient primordial goop to all the beauty that is the world around us today. Terms such as "speciation" and "adaptation" have been lumped into a new term known as "micro-evolution". Meanwhile, a new term called "macro-evolution" consists of the whole enchilada from nothingness to everything we see today which traditionally has simply been called, "evolution".
That would be fine, because micro-evolution has scientific validity based on many studies. It explains why humans for generations near the equator have developed more sun fighting melanin in their skin than those whose ancestry spent thousands of years closer to the polar caps. It explains why Eskimos have thick ears and thick cheeks that help them battle extreme cold and why waterfowl develop webbing between their toes. Life forms do indeed adapt to their environment. Unfortunately for the die-hard Darwinist, it doesn't change the fact that individuals with differences based on their ancestral environment are still humans of the same species and modern ducks compared to ancient ducks are still ducks.
Herein lies the problem. Many scientists (mostly done on purpose) love to say, "evolution is proven" which is a meaningless statement because what they are really saying is that "micro-evolution is proven". Macro-evolution on the other hand is based on postulation and guessing while force fitting all clues into a preconceived model as though the model is proven.
To a non-science educated novice on the street, they only know about the now-defunct term called "evolution", which is last century's terminology that has the old "spontaneous generation" (now re-termed "abiogenisis" but is the same thing) where a single celled life form sprang into existence and billions of years later grew into a body with eyes, ears, brains, reproductive organs, and a wide variety of senses. That is now called "macro-evolution". So when someone says "evolution is proven", the person either has no clue or is purposely trying to persuade a novice into a believer in the old defunct model. It is always necessary in science now to ask, "are you talking micro or macro evolution?" because the term scientific evolution is utterly meaningless without the prefix. As a sports metaphor, it's like understanding how a football is made and then declaring that because you know how a football is constructed, the NY Football Giants have won every game they have ever played and always will win and never lose in the future.
Another misleading term is "the missing link". An honest scientist who works in the field of anthropology, paleontology, etc., knows that there is a "link", but a missing chain. Hence the development of a newer hypothesis called punctuated equilibrium to explain why the connection from ancient life forms to modern life forms do not exist.
My thoughts are that microevolution and macroevolution are pretty much the same thing and artificially make some sort of difference by the number of generations involved. You can see evolution in certain organisms directly because of their generation rate but you cannot see it for a duck or human because it is slower. Still the same thing. You talk about a duck being a duck or a human being a human. Is a wolf a dog! Is a Neanderthal s homo sapien?Is a crocodile an alligator? Things spectate at different rates. As time goes by separated parts of a species start to lose the ability to procreate together sometimes being able to but leaving barren offspring and eventually not interbreed at all. You can call two separate species of duck both ducks but that is just a name we give them for convenience. They are really not the same thing orduck and eventually if separately long enough in different environments might not even look like what we call ducks.
You use the basically outdated term "Darwinist" . That is a term that creationists generally use. Out of curiousity do you believe in what you call macroevolution and are you a creationist? Just would like to know where you are coming from.
I use the term "Darwinist" because I believe traditional evolution as taught in the last century to be little more than another religion with a different godhead. So you are pretty astute to pick that out of my ramblings. And yes, I am a born again Christian. I do not consider myself "religious", but rather "spiritual". I believe if religion is man's organized attempt to find God. If one is spiritual, he's already found God and avoids the ceremonial stuff related to organized religion. I believe that any organization that has a hierarchy of power and positions, and money is involved, will invariably become corrupt over time. I keep my life simple by praying, studying the Bible in depth, and enjoying all the nature this world has to offer.
I have debated for years on this subject including at Cornell (which is very close to my home) and several other universities. I do not argue favorably for creation or any other explanation of our being (Panspermia, Classic Gradualism, Punctualism, etc.), but play the role of Socrates and simply question everything. I do not get offended by people who don't agree with me, but I get surprised at how people are often offended if I don't agree with them. Seems weird to me as none of us have a corner on knowledge - especially concerning our existence in the first place. In my opinion, no matter how life started and how we got here, it had to be "supernatural", and by that I simply mean, a method that is in direct contrast to the laws of nature. Whether someone wants to credit an unseen intelligence with a guiding hand or a "lucky break in infinite chaos" matters little to me. I just like the subject matter.
FYI, my degrees are in engineering, math and statistics with a lot of college level courses in most of the sciences. However, I believe there is nothing a person can learn in college that can't be learned for free by doing hard research and studying in a good library. I'm no expert, just a man with a million questions and have been on a quest for answers my whole life.
This right here is the crux of the argument.
The atheist position is not "God does not exist." The atheist position is "There is no evidence that God exists."
Believers ask for atheists to prove that God doesn't exist as if the atheists are the ones making a positive assertion in this argument.
You cannot disprove the existence God or anything else. There is no conceivable evidence of nothingness or nonexistence. You CAN affirm the existence of God or anything else if evidence presents itself.
The atheist rejects the unproven assertion of the theist that there is an all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent creator of the universe.
The theist is making an extraordinary claim and as such must present extraordinary evidence to substantiate it, if that is indeed the goal.
If there is a God, than he is the Universe in totality. And we are all just parts of him along with every other molecule that makes up the Universe. That's the closest I can come to believing in God.
Quote:
what a person puts their faith in: One either gives credit to chaos and luck, or the guidance of unknown intelligence.
They used to say the same thing about the rain: either it was chaos and luck or it was those damn Rain Gods. If you threw them a few virgins, it seemed to make them happy, but not always. Which meant you either needed to sacrifice more virgins or the previous virgins you threw them weren't really virgins.
The scientific cause of rain is not conjecture. It is understandable, it is able to be witnessed, and can be proven in controlled experiments and is repeatable. Ancient beings thinking there was a rain god were not basing their beliefs on anything other than superstition and a lack of the fundamental understandings of nature. Not really their fault.
The existence of humankind and all the nature around him bursting forth from nothing is not explained by science and therefore requires a ton of conjecture. Heck, the best scientists in the world cannot even recreate life in its very simplest form from dead matter, but not for lack of trying and endless and exhaustive research over many years.
Comparing the understanding of the mechanics of rain with the mechanics of the existence of all life is silly. No one can prove why we exist and where we came from. It's really that simple. Nothing wrong with studying it and trying to figure it out, but speaking about it authoritatively is little more than evangelizing a pre-bent philosophy and is not based in fact.
If you adhere to gradualism (the theory of macro-evolution that gradually evolved from nothing to everything), then you also have to believe that genetic mutations are inherently beneficial and with every mutated gene, something improves dramatically in a life form - like growing legs, eyes, and ears when prior generations of the same type had none. Yet, the science is indisputable that mutated genes create negative consequences (spinal bifida, cerebral palsy, deafness from birth, blindness from birth, missing extremities, missing organs, mental health disabilities, etc. In fact, ask any parent who is about to have a baby if they'd like a scientist to introduce a mutated gene into the fetus of their child in the womb and you won't get any takers (unless the parents are complete idiots)...even if the scientist claims there is a one-in-a-billion chance the child will be an improved version of the human race. And to hold fast to the theory of gradualism, you have to have faith that mutated genes are overwhelmingly good and constantly improving the human race into a better species.
Quote:
In comment 12987742 mavric said:
Quote:
what a person puts their faith in: One either gives credit to chaos and luck, or the guidance of unknown intelligence.
They used to say the same thing about the rain: either it was chaos and luck or it was those damn Rain Gods. If you threw them a few virgins, it seemed to make them happy, but not always. Which meant you either needed to sacrifice more virgins or the previous virgins you threw them weren't really virgins.
The scientific cause of rain is not conjecture. It is understandable, it is able to be witnessed, and can be proven in controlled experiments and is repeatable. Ancient beings thinking there was a rain god were not basing their beliefs on anything other than superstition and a lack of the fundamental understandings of nature. Not really their fault.
The existence of humankind and all the nature around him bursting forth from nothing is not explained by science and therefore requires a ton of conjecture. Heck, the best scientists in the world cannot even recreate life in its very simplest form from dead matter, but not for lack of trying and endless and exhaustive research over many years.
Comparing the understanding of the mechanics of rain with the mechanics of the existence of all life is silly. No one can prove why we exist and where we came from. It's really that simple. Nothing wrong with studying it and trying to figure it out, but speaking about it authoritatively is little more than evangelizing a pre-bent philosophy and is not based in fact.
If you adhere to gradualism (the theory of macro-evolution that gradually evolved from nothing to everything), then you also have to believe that genetic mutations are inherently beneficial and with every mutated gene, something improves dramatically in a life form - like growing legs, eyes, and ears when prior generations of the same type had none. Yet, the science is indisputable that mutated genes create negative consequences (spinal bifida, cerebral palsy, deafness from birth, blindness from birth, missing extremities, missing organs, mental health disabilities, etc. In fact, ask any parent who is about to have a baby if they'd like a scientist to introduce a mutated gene into the fetus of their child in the womb and you won't get any takers (unless the parents are complete idiots)...even if the scientist claims there is a one-in-a-billion chance the child will be an improved version of the human race. And to hold fast to the theory of gradualism, you have to have faith that mutated genes are overwhelmingly good and constantly improving the human race into a better species.
Some mutation is beneficial (ie: increases survivability of the organism to raise its chances to reproduce and pass on its genes), some is neutral, some is maladaptive.
When beneficial mutation occurs, the organism typically thrives and reproduces so those genes are passed on to the next generation.
When harmful mutation occurs, that organism typically does not survive to reproduce.
Over a long period of time a population is shaped by which genes get passed along and which do not.
You are mistakenly inserting the idea of intent into a process which is impersonal.
The number of "good mutations" necessary for a tiny glob of primordial snot to become all that we see around us including ourselves, is a number so astronomically high that it's beyond human comprehension. The glob of snot did not suddenly "reproduce" because it had no reproductive system where it could suddenly give birth to a better piece of snot perhaps this time with a spine. A spine is not a bone spur, but a series of highly intricate bones of incredible complexity so that discs, vertebrae, facet joints designed just right to allow 6 degrees of movement (like the Zygapophysial joint that allows movement in the z-axis), ligaments constructed just right to hold the 23 discs making up a spine in place, and other such intricate parts like softer bone-like tissue such as anulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus to protect discs and vertebra from nerves (of course, we don't know where nerves developed and without a brain yet, nerves would be meaningless), and all parts neatly constructed from neck to lower back so that all of the parts can allow movement around a protected spinal cord that is a delivery system to the brain. And this is even before there is a head on the piece of primordial snot, or legs, or arms/hands/fingers, etc. And the spine is kids play compared to the brain, or the eyes, or ears.
Yet giving credit to chaos and lots of luck, all of that must have happened because as the primordial snot reproduced somehow (strange as it had yet to develop a reproductive system) and literally "nothing became something". And after nothing became something, it took various paths with beneficial genetic mutations which after millions of years include all varieties of vegetation, animals, fowl, reptiles, and of course us human beings. Pretty incredible. And the number of "good mutations" required to build that piece of primordial snot into a masterpiece like Odell Beckham Jr., with the speed and coordination to catch an errant pass with two fingers while being tackled is literally unfathomable to the thinking mind. And it all started with primordial snot and a whole lot of lucky breaks in a world of chaos with no intelligence guiding it.
Granted, 1 out of a billion or so mutated genes can be beneficial...as in possibly enhancing our immune system. But thinking that nearly all (or even a few) mutations can be beneficial and that those so-called beneficial mutations built a masterpiece from snot through randomness...is quite simply, crazy talk as far as I'm concerned.
The idea that beneficial mutations can mold lifeless snot into highly complex, intelligent, dual gendered living organisms with intelligence, emotions, and the ability to love requires a leap of faith so incredible that I simply cannot take that jump.
This of course does not prove the existence of God, but a healthy mind should have some pretty serious skepticism about the current "scientific" explanation of our existence.
The existence of humankind and all the nature around him bursting forth from nothing is not explained by science and therefore requires a ton of conjecture. Heck, the best scientists in the world cannot even recreate life in its very simplest form from dead matter, but not for lack of trying and endless and exhaustive research over many years.
Ancient beings thinking a rain god was controlling things happened not just out of superstition, but given their knowledge at the time, they had no way to prove what caused the rain. Their ignorance led to believing it was God.
The existence of Humankind and all the nature is not explained by science today, but simple things like rain and volcanic eruptions weren't explained by science years ago. Perhaps we are in the same place as our ancient ancestors in that we can't figure it out because we don't yet have the knowledge to do so.
What I've always found to be a contradiction of organized religion is the insistence that "Enlightenment" is happening, all while the idea of free speech and free thought isn't truly tolerated. There's big business to be had in making sure that people have the Fear of God, or at least the unknownness of God.
The rest of your post is just arguing that it just does not make sense to you. Sort of like saying that quantum physics can't be right because it makes no sense to me.
Quote:
The scientific cause of rain is not conjecture. It is understandable, it is able to be witnessed, and can be proven in controlled experiments and is repeatable. Ancient beings thinking there was a rain god were not basing their beliefs on anything other than superstition and a lack of the fundamental understandings of nature. Not really their fault.
The existence of humankind and all the nature around him bursting forth from nothing is not explained by science and therefore requires a ton of conjecture. Heck, the best scientists in the world cannot even recreate life in its very simplest form from dead matter, but not for lack of trying and endless and exhaustive research over many years.
Ancient beings thinking a rain god was controlling things happened not just out of superstition, but given their knowledge at the time, they had no way to prove what caused the rain. Their ignorance led to believing it was God.
The existence of Humankind and all the nature is not explained by science today, but simple things like rain and volcanic eruptions weren't explained by science years ago. Perhaps we are in the same place as our ancient ancestors in that we can't figure it out because we don't yet have the knowledge to do so.
What I've always found to be a contradiction of organized religion is the insistence that "Enlightenment" is happening, all while the idea of free speech and free thought isn't truly tolerated. There's big business to be had in making sure that people have the Fear of God, or at least the unknownness of God.
The number of "good mutations" necessary for a tiny glob of primordial snot to become all that we see around us including ourselves, is a number so astronomically high that it's beyond human comprehension. The glob of snot did not suddenly "reproduce" because it had no reproductive system where it could suddenly give birth to a better piece of snot perhaps this time with a spine. A spine is not a bone spur, but a series of highly intricate bones of incredible complexity so that discs, vertebrae, facet joints designed just right to allow 6 degrees of movement (like the Zygapophysial joint that allows movement in the z-axis), ligaments constructed just right to hold the 23 discs making up a spine in place, and other such intricate parts like softer bone-like tissue such as anulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus to protect discs and vertebra from nerves (of course, we don't know where nerves developed and without a brain yet, nerves would be meaningless), and all parts neatly constructed from neck to lower back so that all of the parts can allow movement around a protected spinal cord that is a delivery system to the brain. And this is even before there is a head on the piece of primordial snot, or legs, or arms/hands/fingers, etc. And the spine is kids play compared to the brain, or the eyes, or ears.
Yet giving credit to chaos and lots of luck, all of that must have happened because as the primordial snot reproduced somehow (strange as it had yet to develop a reproductive system) and literally "nothing became something". And after nothing became something, it took various paths with beneficial genetic mutations which after millions of years include all varieties of vegetation, animals, fowl, reptiles, and of course us human beings. Pretty incredible. And the number of "good mutations" required to build that piece of primordial snot into a masterpiece like Odell Beckham Jr., with the speed and coordination to catch an errant pass with two fingers while being tackled is literally unfathomable to the thinking mind. And it all started with primordial snot and a whole lot of lucky breaks in a world of chaos with no intelligence guiding it.
Granted, 1 out of a billion or so mutated genes can be beneficial...as in possibly enhancing our immune system. But thinking that nearly all (or even a few) mutations can be beneficial and that those so-called beneficial mutations built a masterpiece from snot through randomness...is quite simply, crazy talk as far as I'm concerned.
The idea that beneficial mutations can mold lifeless snot into highly complex, intelligent, dual gendered living organisms with intelligence, emotions, and the ability to love requires a leap of faith so incredible that I simply cannot take that jump.
This of course does not prove the existence of God, but a healthy mind should have some pretty serious skepticism about the current "scientific" explanation of our existence.
This is a lot of words aptly demonstrating that you really don't understand this subject very well at all. If you did, you'd know that "nearly all mutations" being beneficial is absolutely not part of evolution theory.
I have been in these discussions/debates for many years. Those who I debate are mostly scientists, many of which have Phd's and are experts in their field. When the dust settles, they all admit that the mechanism that drives evolution from the simplest life forms to the most complex is genetic mutations.
My points are: 1) beneficial genetic mutations are extremely rare and 2) the sheer number of mutations required to build the complex life form that is the human race, is unfathomable...even if put on a timeline of many trillions of years instead of the paltry millions of years of time.
I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
Quote:
This is a lot of words aptly demonstrating that you really don't understand this subject very well at all. If you did, you'd know that "nearly all mutations" being beneficial is absolutely not part of evolution theory.
I have been in these discussions/debates for many years. Those who I debate are mostly scientists, many of which have Phd's and are experts in their field. When the dust settles, they all admit that the mechanism that drives evolution from the simplest life forms to the most complex is genetic mutations.
My points are: 1) beneficial genetic mutations are extremely rare and 2) the sheer number of mutations required to build the complex life form that is the human race, is unfathomable...even if put on a timeline of many trillions of years instead of the paltry millions of years of time.
I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
When I've been in debates about perfectly formed and the complexities of life, it usually leads to another set of questions.
- Is life truly perfectly formed?
- Why this planet only (to our current knowledge). Why create Earth and surround it with a bunch of non-functioning planets when it comes to a theory that God in Omnipotent?
- Is something perfect that can have so many permutations in design and can have the life force ended in so many different ways - often through the actions of other forms of life (such as bacteria) or random cell growth (Cancer)
- How far do alternate galaxies extend and was it a single entity that created the entire universe?
I think that there had to be some truly extraordinary event to bring about life. How that happened is something I'll never figure out in my lifetime. Being a skeptic is natural because we all lack this knowledge.
Quote:
This is a lot of words aptly demonstrating that you really don't understand this subject very well at all. If you did, you'd know that "nearly all mutations" being beneficial is absolutely not part of evolution theory.
I have been in these discussions/debates for many years. Those who I debate are mostly scientists, many of which have Phd's and are experts in their field. When the dust settles, they all admit that the mechanism that drives evolution from the simplest life forms to the most complex is genetic mutations.
My points are: 1) beneficial genetic mutations are extremely rare and 2) the sheer number of mutations required to build the complex life form that is the human race, is unfathomable...even if put on a timeline of many trillions of years instead of the paltry millions of years of time.
I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
I'm not offended. It's just that "it's unfathomable" is a lousy argument. How long 3-4 billion years is also unfathomable but it's about how long it's taken for life to get to today. You greatly underestimate the things that can happen in that amount of time. The sheer number of species that have evolved and become extinct is unfathomable too. The universe is unfathomably big. The Higgs-boson particle is unfathomably small.
The thing is, just because a thing is unfathomable doesn't mean that the logical conclusion to be drawn from that thing is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ must be God. This is a simple and obvious mistake of logic.
Quote:I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
At the risk of prolonging this lunacy, the mutation process is neither random nor chaotic, nor is it accidental, or any of the other framing flags you've been using.
Quote:
In comment 12988448 Heisenberg said:
Quote:I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
At the risk of prolonging this lunacy, the mutation process is neither random nor chaotic, nor is it accidental, or any of the other framing flags you've been using.
So, I guess you are a proponent of intelligent design and believe mutated genes are controlled in an intelligent manner rather than random. That's okay. That's the final conclusion of many world renown mathematicians including Antony Flew, one of the most staunch atheists in history. They come to the same conclusion...there is an intelligence guiding nature. Of course, this ruffled the feathers of staunch evolutionists because if evolution as taught in high schools is correct, there cannot be intelligence guiding anything in nature and it MUST be random chance and lucky breaks.
Regardless...I have no desire to convince anyone that scientists who I associate with say that the driving force in change over generations are mutated genes. I would love to hear another explanation as to why something as simple as an amoeba can grow reproductive, respiratory, skeletal, digestive, systems controlled by a highly complex brain given enough time, exponential generations, and a healthy dose of really good luck. I have never heard a single explanation for this driving force other than mutated genes as the engine driving evolution.
Heck, even today's greatest thinkers are having second thoughts. Like Stephen Hawkings earlier this week announcing that he believes there is an intelligence behind creation. Does that make him right? Heck no. It just means he doesn't fall in line with other great thinkers as he ponders our very existence.
Stephen Hawkings Shocks Scientific World as He Admits He Agrees with Intelligent Design - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12988485 mavric said:
Quote:
In comment 12988448 Heisenberg said:
Quote:I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
At the risk of prolonging this lunacy, the mutation process is neither random nor chaotic, nor is it accidental, or any of the other framing flags you've been using.
So, I guess you are a proponent of intelligent design and believe mutated genes are controlled in an intelligent manner rather than random. That's okay. That's the final conclusion of many world renown mathematicians including Antony Flew, one of the most staunch atheists in history. They come to the same conclusion...there is an intelligence guiding nature. Of course, this ruffled the feathers of staunch evolutionists because if evolution as taught in high schools is correct, there cannot be intelligence guiding anything in nature and it MUST be random chance and lucky breaks.
Regardless...I have no desire to convince anyone that scientists who I associate with say that the driving force in change over generations are mutated genes. I would love to hear another explanation as to why something as simple as an amoeba can grow reproductive, respiratory, skeletal, digestive, systems controlled by a highly complex brain given enough time, exponential generations, and a healthy dose of really good luck. I have never heard a single explanation for this driving force other than mutated genes as the engine driving evolution.
Heck, even today's greatest thinkers are having second thoughts. Like Stephen Hawkings earlier this week announcing that he believes there is an intelligence behind creation. Does that make him right? Heck no. It just means he doesn't fall in line with other great thinkers as he ponders our very existence. Stephen Hawkings Shocks Scientific World as He Admits He Agrees with Intelligent Design - ( New Window )
How did you ever come up with that gem? Your reading comprehension is as muddled as your understanding of the topic.
Quote:
In comment 12988485 mavric said:
Quote:
In comment 12988448 Heisenberg said:
Quote:I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
At the risk of prolonging this lunacy, the mutation process is neither random nor chaotic, nor is it accidental, or any of the other framing flags you've been using.
So, I guess you are a proponent of intelligent design and believe mutated genes are controlled in an intelligent manner rather than random. That's okay. That's the final conclusion of many world renown mathematicians including Antony Flew, one of the most staunch atheists in history. They come to the same conclusion...there is an intelligence guiding nature. Of course, this ruffled the feathers of staunch evolutionists because if evolution as taught in high schools is correct, there cannot be intelligence guiding anything in nature and it MUST be random chance and lucky breaks.
Regardless...I have no desire to convince anyone that scientists who I associate with say that the driving force in change over generations are mutated genes. I would love to hear another explanation as to why something as simple as an amoeba can grow reproductive, respiratory, skeletal, digestive, systems controlled by a highly complex brain given enough time, exponential generations, and a healthy dose of really good luck. I have never heard a single explanation for this driving force other than mutated genes as the engine driving evolution.
Heck, even today's greatest thinkers are having second thoughts. Like Stephen Hawkings earlier this week announcing that he believes there is an intelligence behind creation. Does that make him right? Heck no. It just means he doesn't fall in line with other great thinkers as he ponders our very existence. Stephen Hawkings Shocks Scientific World as He Admits He Agrees with Intelligent Design - ( New Window )
The scientific cause of rain is not conjecture. It is understandable, it is able to be witnessed, and can be proven in controlled experiments and is repeatable. Ancient beings thinking there was a rain god were not basing their beliefs on anything other than superstition and a lack of the fundamental understandings of nature.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
I don't think ridiculing someone is exactly a strong argument. I've been studying this subject since the 70's and have met and discussed this same subject with many scientists with prestigious backgrounds and education. Funny thing is, no matter how the discussion goes, none of us ridicule each other or request others to stop asking questions. We have mutual respect and treat each other as such. No reason to attack me personally. I just ask a lot of questions and hopefully, get some brain cells awakened by people having the same questions about our existence.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
Quote:
What are you hoping to accomplish by debating a guy on natural selection who's clearly shown he either doesn't understand the the way it works, or worse, intentially misrepresent it so as to keep everyone busy correcting him.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
Possibly our responses are directed at those reading and not understandings the flaws in his argument. We are aware nothing will change his mind.
Well - it would be nice if posters on this board would point out the "flaws" with actual factual rebuttal rather than resort to personal ridicule.
I have been ridiculed for pointing out that mutated genes are believed to be the driving force of "non intelligent macro evolution" and I get responses that there are other forces. Yet they fail to bring them up or even venture a guess. I'm fair game for debate, but it gets old when posters decide to go after me personally rather than refute my statements with a well thought out and fact filled response.
Regardless, if this is going to become about me. I'll move on and ask no more questions that make some people uneasy.
Quote:
In comment 12988485 mavric said:
Quote:
In comment 12988448 Heisenberg said:
Quote:I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
At the risk of prolonging this lunacy, the mutation process is neither random nor chaotic, nor is it accidental, or any of the other framing flags you've been using.
So, I guess you are a proponent of intelligent design and believe mutated genes are controlled in an intelligent manner rather than random. That's okay. That's the final conclusion of many world renown mathematicians including Antony Flew, one of the most staunch atheists in history. They come to the same conclusion...there is an intelligence guiding nature. Of course, this ruffled the feathers of staunch evolutionists because if evolution as taught in high schools is correct, there cannot be intelligence guiding anything in nature and it MUST be random chance and lucky breaks.
Regardless...I have no desire to convince anyone that scientists who I associate with say that the driving force in change over generations are mutated genes. I would love to hear another explanation as to why something as simple as an amoeba can grow reproductive, respiratory, skeletal, digestive, systems controlled by a highly complex brain given enough time, exponential generations, and a healthy dose of really good luck. I have never heard a single explanation for this driving force other than mutated genes as the engine driving evolution.
Heck, even today's greatest thinkers are having second thoughts. Like Stephen Hawkings earlier this week announcing that he believes there is an intelligence behind creation. Does that make him right? Heck no. It just means he doesn't fall in line with other great thinkers as he ponders our very existence. Stephen Hawkings Shocks Scientific World as He Admits He Agrees with Intelligent Design - ( New Window )
Dude... that link.
That site is a fake news site. Like, literally, they make it all up.
not a real news site. just read their disclaimer. - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12988931 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
What are you hoping to accomplish by debating a guy on natural selection who's clearly shown he either doesn't understand the the way it works, or worse, intentially misrepresent it so as to keep everyone busy correcting him.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
Possibly our responses are directed at those reading and not understandings the flaws in his argument. We are aware nothing will change his mind.
Well - it would be nice if posters on this board would point out the "flaws" with actual factual rebuttal rather than resort to personal ridicule.
I have been ridiculed for pointing out that mutated genes are believed to be the driving force of "non intelligent macro evolution" and I get responses that there are other forces. Yet they fail to bring them up or even venture a guess. I'm fair game for debate, but it gets old when posters decide to go after me personally rather than refute my statements with a well thought out and fact filled response.
Regardless, if this is going to become about me. I'll move on and ask no more questions that make some people uneasy.
Here you go. - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12988931 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
What are you hoping to accomplish by debating a guy on natural selection who's clearly shown he either doesn't understand the the way it works, or worse, intentially misrepresent it so as to keep everyone busy correcting him.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
Possibly our responses are directed at those reading and not understandings the flaws in his argument. We are aware nothing will change his mind.
Well - it would be nice if posters on this board would point out the "flaws" with actual factual rebuttal rather than resort to personal ridicule.
I have been ridiculed for pointing out that mutated genes are believed to be the driving force of "non intelligent macro evolution" and I get responses that there are other forces. Yet they fail to bring them up or even venture a guess. I'm fair game for debate, but it gets old when posters decide to go after me personally rather than refute my statements with a well thought out and fact filled response.
Regardless, if this is going to become about me. I'll move on and ask no more questions that make some people uneasy.
No one is pointing out flaws - they are redirecting the discussion to a different subject altogether and avoiding the hard questions that scientists have been dealing with for years. One person denies that mutated genes are the driving force that took a speck of dead primordial snot and somehow gave it life, and then caused it to morph into a dual gendered life forms with brains, respiratory systems, eyes to see, ears to hear, mouths to taste and chew, etc. The person boldly states that I obviously "don't understand natural selection"...lmao. He then pats himself on his back thinking he has put someone in their place. But...it's apparent that he doesn't understand the difference between micro and macro evolution. I have been clearly discussing MACRO-Evolution.
Natural selection explains why successive generations of life forms (especially - if not uniquely - in the animal kingdom) in which the female species searches for the best male counterpart in which to breed for a better offspring. Over time, the life form produces better physical specimans with more ability to fight off diseases. Also, natural selection explains why certain life forms adapt better to different environments and therefore successive generations of offspring tend to be better in dealing with the environment they are stuck in. That is "Micro-Evolution"! No one with a scientific background denies micro-evolution.
But I'm asking about "Macro-Evolution" - the driving force that caused the primordial snot to suddenly "awaken to life" and "morph into all that we are". Natural selection does not cause dead primordial matter that resembles snot to snap to life and then grow a skeletal system with an intricate spine, a functioning brain, legs to walk, etc. So as one of the so-called "flaws in my argument" because I "obviously don't understand natural selection" goes - that's bullshit.
Tell me the driving force behind dead matter coming to life and over time developing dual genders (that require each other in order for their species to survive) and morph into all the makings of the human body with DNA code that holds far greater information than all the information found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't care that over time a human being is a better life form thanks to selective mating, better nutrition, medical breakthrough, improved medicines, etc. Natural selection started as a physical and mental specimen and over time ended up as a better physical and mental specimen. Now if natural selection explained why a banana morphed some kind of animal or why the primordial snot chose a path to become a flower instead of the human race, we'd have something to hang our hats on. And BTW, humans share 60% of our DNA with a banana plant - but only 50% of our DNA with a banana. And yes, we share close to 90% of our DNA with a dog. My dilemma in my personal thought life, is "how did that snot come to life and become everything", NOT why are humans physically better in the 21st century compared to the 18th century. Actually, this subject barely scratches the surface of the things I ponder. Sometimes I'd like to be able to shut my brain down and only worry about what beer to drink and which woman has a better backside.
Quote:
Your straw man arguments don't make people uneasy, they just make us frustrated that when the flaws are pointed out, you merely ignore them and resort to the same straw man for another dishonest hatchet job. You pretend to be interested in a genuine back and forth debate, but, as Big Al points out, your refusal to address any questions that make you "uneasy" proves that's not really the case.
No one is pointing out flaws - they are redirecting the discussion to a different subject altogether and avoiding the hard questions that scientists have been dealing with for years. One person denies that mutated genes are the driving force that took a speck of dead primordial snot and somehow gave it life, and then caused it to morph into a dual gendered life forms with brains, respiratory systems, eyes to see, ears to hear, mouths to taste and chew, etc. The person boldly states that I obviously "don't understand natural selection"...lmao. He then pats himself on his back thinking he has put someone in their place. But...it's apparent that he doesn't understand the difference between micro and macro evolution. I have been clearly discussing MACRO-Evolution.
Natural selection explains why successive generations of life forms (especially - if not uniquely - in the animal kingdom) in which the female species searches for the best male counterpart in which to breed for a better offspring. Over time, the life form produces better physical specimans with more ability to fight off diseases. Also, natural selection explains why certain life forms adapt better to different environments and therefore successive generations of offspring tend to be better in dealing with the environment they are stuck in. That is "Micro-Evolution"! No one with a scientific background denies micro-evolution.
But I'm asking about "Macro-Evolution" - the driving force that caused the primordial snot to suddenly "awaken to life" and "morph into all that we are". Natural selection does not cause dead primordial matter that resembles snot to snap to life and then grow a skeletal system with an intricate spine, a functioning brain, legs to walk, etc. So as one of the so-called "flaws in my argument" because I "obviously don't understand natural selection" goes - that's bullshit.
Tell me the driving force behind dead matter coming to life and over time developing dual genders (that require each other in order for their species to survive) and morph into all the makings of the human body with DNA code that holds far greater information than all the information found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't care that over time a human being is a better life form thanks to selective mating, better nutrition, medical breakthrough, improved medicines, etc. Natural selection started as a physical and mental specimen and over time ended up as a better physical and mental specimen. Now if natural selection explained why a banana morphed some kind of animal or why the primordial snot chose a path to become a flower instead of the human race, we'd have something to hang our hats on. And BTW, humans share 60% of our DNA with a banana plant - but only 50% of our DNA with a banana. And yes, we share close to 90% of our DNA with a dog. My dilemma in my personal thought life, is "how did that snot come to life and become everything", NOT why are humans physically better in the 21st century compared to the 18th century. Actually, this subject barely scratches the surface of the things I ponder. Sometimes I'd like to be able to shut my brain down and only worry about what beer to drink and which woman has a better backside.
Now...Scarlett Johansson or Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba or Shakira (the list seems endless)...don't even need beer, just have a pulse left.
Now...Scarlett Johansson or Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba or Shakira (the list seems endless)...don't even need beer, just have a pulse left.