Then can we bury this thread we have given Eve enough of our time .

(November 26, 2018 at 9:40 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Hey Mister Agenda.  No, I did not intend that to be a strawman argument.  I don't play that game.  

Of course I want to learn more.  Steven Hawking determined that the curvature of space went to infinity at the time of the Big Bang.  That means there was no space, time, matter, or energy.  All this literally came from nothing.  Of course I am interested in your source as well.

I know you've been told before that Hawking isn't the be-all and end-all of theoretical physics. He has been wrong sometimes, once famously so. There are other hypotheses. There's no scientific reason to cling so tightly to this particular hypothesis when there are so many to choose from. The rational position is to recognize that they are all possible (matches the evidence we already have and the math works) but none are actually 'determined' yet. I hope to live to see the attainment of evidence some day that would tend to confirm one of these hypotheses so there will actually be a good reason to settle on one.

---

(November 27, 2018 at 10:08 am)Amarok Wrote: Then can we bury this thread we have given Eve enough of our time .

You're getting tired of the chess-playing pigeons?

(November 27, 2018 at 3:35 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(November 27, 2018 at 3:26 am)CDF47 Wrote: It's similar to automobile manufacturers that use the same platform for different vehicles.

---

Really, do cars fuck and give birth to slightly different cars?

(November 27, 2018 at 3:26 am)CDF47 Wrote: A blind process like evolution can't design anything.

No it can’t.  But nonetheless it can cause new things to come to be without designing it.

But infantile idiots like you who can’t envision complex processes of reality operating without anthropomorphizing it, just as children can’t imagine make belief characters represented by their dolls not talking to each other, also can’t comprehend any word or concept for its operation other than “designed”.   So we use the vocabulary tailored to your infantile comprehension to give you as much help as is possible, albeit clearly still far short of sufficient, to let you come as close as is within your powers to come, to a more accurate view of reality.

(November 27, 2018 at 3:26 am)CDF47 Wrote:

---

By the way, name calling from behind a keyboard is lame as hell.

Believing in the 21st century That reality needs a designer and the designer is a no good megalomaniacal derange carpenter who was mean to his mother and who also happen to be god is vastly lamer still.

I know cars don't reproduce, but the analogy is the same.  I never said cars reproduce.  This is another attempted strawman argument.

I also never said I didn't believe evolution occurs  but just on a micro-scale, not a macro-scale and it does not explain origins.

---

(November 27, 2018 at 4:16 am)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:It's similar to automobile manufacturers that use the same platform for different vehicles.

Cars don't reproduce and again this doesn't answer my comment

---

Quote:A blind process like evolution can't design anything.

Yup because it's not designed

---

Quote:By the way, name calling from behind a keyboard is lame as hell.

Uh huh whimper

Nat ah...LOL

---

(November 27, 2018 at 8:48 am)Paleophyte Wrote:

(November 27, 2018 at 2:41 am)CDF47 Wrote: Similar design but totally different species.

ERV aren't part of any "design". They're fossil viruses stuck in your DNA.

It's true, you never see these two in the same room. What's the schtick? Is Everena your rugrat?

They are designed like the rest of DNA.

(November 27, 2018 at 12:03 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I know cars don't reproduce, but the analogy is the same.  I never said cars reproduce.  This is another attempted strawman argument.

I also never said I didn't believe evolution occurs  but just on a micro-scale, not a macro-scale and it does not explain origins.

It’s not a argument, bozo, straw man or otherwise.  It is a pointer to where you went wrong.

The static similarity and differemce between models is not the crux.   The natural “micro-scale” changes from one generation to another that accumulates over many generations to cross the divide with cumulative “macro-scale” is.   In your imagination what are the mechanism that stops small changes from accumulating until it is big enough to separate one specie from another?

If you are already in the process of falling towards the ground 300- feet below, would you still decline to pull the parachute cord because you are only in a micro-scale fall of 3 inches and have personally not witnessed the “macro-scale” fall of anyone plunging all the way to a splat?

Because your pastor tells you are a creature of the air and not of the ground, so you would think the ground is eternally separated from you by an impossible “macro-scale” fall which is prevented  by an unknown mechanism, so you believe your fall will somehow arrest itself?   Will You then repeat “micro falling 3 inches is possible, macro falling 3000 feet is not” all through the entire 3000 feet until the wet meaty thud at its end?

Will you listen to and reflect upon what people who actually study gravity and falling objects predicts, or will you quibble “but have you actually seen a object exactly like me fall that exact 3000 feet?” Because you imagine that’s what jesus and Bible says and what Jesus and Bible says matters more to assessment of the end results of cumulative micro-falls than the ground that’s rushing up to you with no sign of stopping?

(November 27, 2018 at 10:35 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(November 26, 2018 at 9:40 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Hey Mister Agenda.  No, I did not intend that to be a strawman argument.  I don't play that game.  

Of course I want to learn more.  Steven Hawking determined that the curvature of space went to infinity at the time of the Big Bang.  That means there was no space, time, matter, or energy.  All this literally came from nothing.  Of course I am interested in your source as well.

I know you've been told before that Hawking isn't the be-all and end-all of theoretical physics. He has been wrong sometimes, once famously so. There are other hypotheses. There's no scientific reason to cling so tightly to this particular hypothesis when there are so many to choose from. The rational position is to recognize that they are all possible (matches the evidence we already have and the math works) but none are actually 'determined' yet. I hope to live to see the attainment of evidence some day that would tend to confirm one of these hypotheses so there will actually be a good reason to settle on one.

---

(November 27, 2018 at 10:08 am)Amarok Wrote: Then can we bury this thread we have given Eve enough of our time .

You're getting tired of the chess-playing pigeons?

That's true.  There are other hypothesis as well but the Big Bang is widely accepted among scientists.  He was able to perform a calculation and the math added up to infinity from my understanding.  So if it is true, it means the universe literally came from nothing.

---

(November 27, 2018 at 12:06 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: It’s not a argument, bozo,  It is a pointer to where you went wrong.

There you go with the tough guy act again, calling names from behind a keyboard.  It is lame as hell.

(November 27, 2018 at 12:10 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 27, 2018 at 10:35 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I know you've been told before that Hawking isn't the be-all and end-all of theoretical physics. He has been wrong sometimes, once famously so. There are other hypotheses. There's no scientific reason to cling so tightly to this particular hypothesis when there are so many to choose from. The rational position is to recognize that they are all possible (matches the evidence we already have and the math works) but none are actually 'determined' yet. I hope to live to see the attainment of evidence some day that would tend to confirm one of these hypotheses so there will actually be a good reason to settle on one.

---

You're getting tired of the chess-playing pigeons?

That's true.  There are other hypothesis as well but the Big Bang is widely accepted among scientists.  He was able to perform a calculation and the math added up to infinity from my understanding.  So if it is true, it means the universe literally came from nothing.

---

(November 27, 2018 at 12:06 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: It’s not a argument, bozo,  It is a pointer to where you went wrong.

There you go with the tough guy act again, calling names from behind a keyboard.  It is lame as hell.

Not as lame as thinking, in the 21st century, that all reality revolves around a tract concocted by Bronze Age goat fucking nomads filtered though the alledged ramblings of a mid Iron Age deranged megalomaniacal layabout carpenter who came to no good end.

(November 27, 2018 at 12:03 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 27, 2018 at 8:48 am)Paleophyte Wrote: ERV aren't part of any "design". They're fossil viruses stuck in your DNA.

It's true, you never see these two in the same room. What's the schtick? Is Everena your rugrat?

They are designed like the rest of DNA.

And God designed you and the chimps with the same useless retroviral fossils? Is this more "mysterious ways" bunk?

no one:
Funniest thing about evolution deniers is that they accept science in every other aspect of their lives. The GPS on their phones. Their phones themselves. Their streaming service. The internet. Their heating and cooling system. The medicine they take. Even if the metorologist says there is a 95% chance of rain on Wednesday, most of them will carry an umbrella. But the science of evolution is somehow hogwash, and they have no idea what they are talking about.

The CDFster:
I believe there is micro-evolution, adaptation, mutations,..., but not in macro-evolution.  I do not believe a species can change kinds.


So, do you also believe in seconds but not millennia? And just what exactly is a Kind?  Do you have Kent Hovind posters up on your bedroom wall? Do you think he's dreamy?

Fact: There are 92 known cases of nuclear bombs lost at sea.

Should we expect Godzilla then, sayer of nays?