Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TzarChasm

All known evidence indicates life didn't exist until roughly a billion (1,000,000,000+/-) years ago. Measuring consciousness is a different matter and calls into question our own sanity as a species (for the sake of efficient dialogue, we assume that we can reliably compare other examples of intelligent life with our own abilities)

Perhaps you can briefly describe the "Ebner Effect" for the forum, if you don't mind.

I think life started about 3.7 billion years ago, but was rather stagnate until about a billion years ago to where more advance life kicked into over drive. I suggested that once the predator/prey scenario came on the scene it is what kicked off the arms race in life.

Thank you for the correction

originally posted by: TzarChasm


Chasm: "All known evidence indicates life didn't exist until roughly a billion (1,000,000,000+/-) years ago. "


Xtro: "I think life started about 3.7 billion years ago, but was rather stagnate until about a billion years ago to where more advance life kicked into over drive."

Chasm: "Thank you for the correction"

So many different sects. It's hard to keep all the "facts" straight

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm


Chasm: "All known evidence indicates life didn't exist until roughly a billion (1,000,000,000+/-) years ago. "


Xtro: "I think life started about 3.7 billion years ago, but was rather stagnate until about a billion years ago to where more advance life kicked into over drive."

Chasm: "Thank you for the correction"

So many different sects. It's hard to keep all the "facts" straight

The equivalent of correcting someone's grammar when you're losing an argument.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm


Chasm: "All known evidence indicates life didn't exist until roughly a billion (1,000,000,000+/-) years ago. "


Xtro: "I think life started about 3.7 billion years ago, but was rather stagnate until about a billion years ago to where more advance life kicked into over drive."

Chasm: "Thank you for the correction"

So many different sects. It's hard to keep all the "facts" straight

Why does it not surprise me science confuses you?


Life first appeared in the Eoarchean Era when the surface of the earth cooled. Prior to that, it was still Moulton in what's called the Hadean Eon. simple lifeforms first appeared 3.5 billion years ago. However, the first multicellular animals did not appear until about 2.5 billion years ago with the first plant life appearing 1.6 billion. The earliest animal fossils appear around 558 million years ago, and multicellular plants evolved from algae around 470 million years ago.

It took a long time for life to organize into something that was multicellular and could survive lots of failed attempts along the way. Not to mention time was needed for algae to produce enough oxygen in the atmosphere.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Why does it not surprise me science confuses you?

I'm still waiting for you to show me an example of something coming from nothing, or admitting you were wrong

Life first appeared in the Eoarchean Era when the surface of the earth cooled.

Whats the evidence that shows that?

Prior to that, it was still Moulton in what's called the Hadean Eon. simple lifeforms first appeared 3.5 billion years ago.

Source? Empirical, no faith blogs.

However, the first multicellular animals did not appear until about 2.5 billion years ago with the first plant life appearing 1.6 billion. The earliest animal fossils appear around 558 million years ago, and multicellular plants evolved from algae around 470 million years ago.

Whats the evidence that can make you so sure of these dates?

As a scientist I can't just accept these dates based on blind faith

Page 42 the answer to all question should come up anytime...

Fried crickets anyone?

originally posted by: Terpene
Page 42 the answer to all question should come up anytime...

Fried crickets anyone?

There is no meaning with evolutionary theory. If we are the spawn of unintelligent random matter, then there is no ultimate higher purpose, and all consciousness inevitably returns to non-awareness without a trace. Luckily for us this is not the case. Our world is far from random or unintelligent, there are intelligible consistent laws that uphold all matter.

These facts get ignored for a random mutant fiction story, that you will realize none of them can defend with straight-forward empirical observations. Despite this they spout their faith in their microbial progenitor as if it's undeniable fact, and they coerce those who are easily intellectually bullied into believing their same meaningless, hopeless theories.

a reply to: cooperton

to be fair neither of you has proof and both accuse the other to belief a fairy tale...

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: cooperton

to be fair neither of you has proof and both accuse the other to belief a fairy tale...

That's the irony I'm pointing out. Theirs is supposed to be science though... it is supposed to be evidence-based

Their belief in a randomly mutated microbial progenitor source of all life inherently gives no meaning to life besides a lucky accident. But if there is a conscious realm that persists beyond matter then there is hope for our enduring existence

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Terpene
Page 42 the answer to all question should come up anytime...

Fried crickets anyone?

There is no meaning with evolutionary theory. If we are the spawn of unintelligent random matter, then there is no ultimate higher purpose, and all consciousness inevitably returns to non-awareness without a trace. Luckily for us this is not the case. Our world is far from random or unintelligent, there are intelligible consistent laws that uphold all matter.

These facts get ignored for a random mutant fiction story, that you will realize none of them can defend with straight-forward empirical observations. Despite this they spout their faith in their microbial progenitor as if it's undeniable fact, and they coerce those who are easily intellectually bullied into believing their same meaningless, hopeless theories.

Prove what you've just written. I'd like to see the evidence for a universal conscience, a proof of a design for all organic matter, proof of a plan or scheme for life that excludes almost all of the rest of the universe.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Prove what you've just written. I'd like to see the evidence for a universal conscience, a proof of a design for all organic matter, proof of a plan or scheme for life that excludes almost all of the rest of the universe.

So your only defense of evolution is to criticize other ideas? Not good.

Intelligible mathematically predictable laws show that there was something intelligent to implement the system. Laws can't come to be without intelligence, as shown by our own court of laws. But this thread is about evolution. Not to mention evolution is supposed to be a science, which would require proof. Show proof that a population of organisms can gradually evolve into a distinctly new organism

a reply to: cooperton

So your only defense of evolution is to criticize other ideas? Not good.

To be fair, that's exactly what you're doing. Hyping up your creation hypothesis by attacking the competition.

There is no meaning with evolutionary theory. If we are the spawn of unintelligent random matter, then there is no ultimate higher purpose

What "ultimate higher purpose" does your creation hypothesis propose? What is creationism supposed to do for the human race that's so incredibly exciting?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

To be fair, that's exactly what you're doing. Hyping up your creation hypothesis by attacking the competition.

This thread is about evolution. You guys are the ones who brings up my beliefs to defend yours

What "ultimate higher purpose" does your creation hypothesis propose? What is creationism supposed to do for the human race that's so incredibly exciting?

If we are intelligently designed by a higher intelligence, then the birthright of humankind would be great beyond our current comprehension.

a reply to: cooperton

Alienview posted a topic asking a question, several forum members have answered the question, and you challenged the answers provided which in turn prompted several answers to your challenge.

"...then the birthright of humankind would be great beyond our current comprehension."

Explain that in more detail please.

Maybe it is more about comfort than science?

one seeks comfort in the meaningfulness he sees if there was a creator and the other seeks comfort in not having to challenge his world view by believing in the commonly accepted one.

originally posted by: Terpene

Maybe it is more about comfort than science?

one seeks comfort in the meaningfulness he sees if there was a creator and the other seeks comfort in not having to challenge his world view by believing in the commonly accepted one.

I believe the term for that is "coping mechanism".

a reply to: TzarChasm

Its all about vocabulary

I found humor to be the best coping mechanism, to each his own I guess

originally posted by: Terpene

Maybe it is more about comfort than science?

one seeks comfort in the meaningfulness he sees if there was a creator and the other seeks comfort in not having to challenge his world view by believing in the commonly accepted one.

I'm sure for some yes. But I was an atheist for a while, because I accepted pragmatically whatever the evidence told me at the certain stage in my life. I learned more and had more life experiences that are incapable of being explained by a material reductionist viewpoint. I realized the intricacies of our selves and all the natural world could not have been created by random chance.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I believe the term for that is "coping mechanism".

Blind atheism is another coping mechanism. If you can't defend your beliefs, why do you believe it?

a reply to: TzarChasm

by all means you can not proof counsciussnes can`t exist outside of matter, as you pointed out it is actually questionable to try and proof it at all.
you can however proof that matter could only be conscious if the physical conditions are given to experience consciousness, under this conditions I could agree with your given timeline. maybe we can term it self consciouss matter?

But when i think about it, my head always wanders to the god helmet experiment.
apparently spoken thoughts and emotions can be induced through electromagnetic fields. Which indicates that the information our brain processes can also come from a foreign source or exist independently, anything that emits electromagnetic fields could be regarded as a foreign consciousness.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: TzarChasm

Its all about vocabulary

I found humor to be the best coping mechanism, to each his own I guess

I suppose there's a certain hilarity in non destined reality, not unlike what you might find in a mad libs joke book.