Irreducible complexity and Evolution

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Science knows the Universe has not always existed...
And that it won't exist forever...

No, it doesn’t.

Yet another assumption on your part.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Science knows the Universe has not always existed...
And that it won't exist forever...

subscribing to the big bang now too?

You're on a roll tonight brother

a reply to: Akragon

Yeah that theory which states from absolutely nothing everything came into existence...
That means created by the way...

a reply to: Akragon

The big bang is pretty well accepted (with variations on the theme).
However, the notion that the Universe has an end, or will...that's a topic of debate because certain key data are lacking.


Christians know the answer though, because...who needs data.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Yeah that theory which states from absolutely nothing everything came into existence...
That means created by the way...

Wrong, again.

The BBT doesn’t state everything comes from nothing.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Yeah that theory which states from absolutely nothing everything came into existence...

no...

no it doesn't.. lol

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Akragon

The big bang is pretty well accepted (with variations on the theme).
However, the notion that the Universe has an end, or will...that's a topic of debate because certain key data are lacking.


Christians know the answer though, because...who needs data.

he basically described the "big bang" and "Big crush" theories... without actually realizing it...

then said it came from nothing...

i just.... Idk

Religious theory is that there is an eternal god that made the universe.

Science theory is the universe may have always existed in one form or another ie eternal.

Of course, I am using the layman's term for theory.

I don't care if people want to believe in a superbeing that made everything, but when they try to convince people that there wasn't a long period of evolution for current species to form its like they are trying to insult human intelligence.

i think i had a mini stroke there...

my eye is twitchin, and one ear is tingling...

a reply to: Akragon

The singularity would show all was introduced into existence from nothing because everything was in one place all of a sudden...
Or from somewhere else to here...
When the Universe starts contracting I could be wrong...

a reply to: TerryDon79
Yes pantheism is everything is divine. Though not the Abrahamic deity idea of divine. You know the fragile ego version that is basically " there can be only one"?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

The singularity would show all was introduced into existence from nothing because everything was in one place all of a sudden...

Take another sip of that drink and read your sentence again...

Or from somewhere else to here...

what?

When the Universe starts contracting I could be wrong...

Im pretty sure you haven't got a clue what you're talking about brother...

a reply to: Grimpachi

If all energy and mass always existed then the Universe and everything else always existed...
If this was so the Universe would not portray the the expansion which supports the big bang...
When do you suppose the effects of dark matter will actually start to become diluted and allow for contraction?

a reply to: Noinden

Why would our universe need more than one creator?
If more than one was capable I'm sure they would rather make their own...

a reply to: Akragon

I'm sure you don't anyway...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

I'm sure you don't anyway...

lol well done...

You just admitted defeat in the last few posts... yet you strive on for no cause..

The singularity would show all was introduced into existence from nothing because everything was in one place all of a sudden...

how can everything be in one place, yet come from nothing?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

I don't know.

Anyone that says they do know is full of it.

Dark matter is still a hypothesis unless there has been a recent discovery.

a reply to: Akragon

By not being there moments before they were there...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Noinden
Anyone here willing to respond to the facts discussed and cited at the top of page 47 other than with a "no citations" followed by something like "Quite mining isn't a citation." as used by peter vlar as a cop-out standardized ad hominem attack and red herring away from discussing the specific and relevant facts about the fossil record and genetics as discussed and cited on page 47.

[citations of observations that are often not presented as facts by those acknowledging that the observations do not fit the storyline, yet still attempts are made to present these observations with a spin as if it doesn't matter for the storyline, using words such as "appears" followed by incorporating something from the storyline such as "tree of life"; even though there's "no evidence at all" for it, any version that incorporates what has been called "macroevolution", including in these citations]

Remember I said in the comment before that (cause people flood the thread with comments quite fast so someone might overlook it):

Unless ATS is censoring the comment above in such a way that I'm the only one that can see it ..., I don't get peter vlar's "Sweet! More claims, Gish gallops, no citations....What a brilliant rebuttal!" (especially since he didn't respond to the comment above [top of page 47 for those interested in the facts discussed and cited there], and the comment he did respond to also contained citations and repetitions of the citations or the most relevant parts of those in the comment above and subsequent comments of mine; the least someone can do is make the lame argument that 'that's just their opinion' or a variation on that general downplaying technique [such as making the accusation that it's just quote mining, page 48] as was done in my thread on this subforum or zoom in and nag about the only citation that has "speculative essay" in the title to distract from the acknowledgements regarding specific facts about "common descent" and the "tree of life" therein, even when they are not presented as facts but in the standard preferred agnostic vague way; a favorite way of arguing and thinking in philosophical naturalism cause otherwise, when applying Newton's methodology as quoted/cited earlier, the propaganda game is exposed way too quickly)...

That's where words such as "appears", "probably does not apply to...", "possibly also not to...", "I believe...maybe not even...", etc. come in to play. Cause the facts that are reluctantly 'acknowledged' to in these warped statements are 'acknowledged' by those for whom these facts are extremely inconvenient for the original gradual storyline, so they want to switch to jerky (punctuated equilibrium), cause that's what the fossil record actually shows; well, not that it's jerky, but that:

"In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor."

So they wanna change their story and now 'predict' a fossil record that nicely matches what you would expect from multiple creationary events. So they can pretend that their evolutionary storyline still makes accurate 'predictions', as long as you just update it with supposed new discoveries and advances in science. But punctuated equilibrium is just their way of 'acknowledging' creationary events without actually acknowledging that as being factual (that the evidence is pointing towards creationary events). Which is why everytime I'm referring to this type of half-hearted acknowledgments, I'll try to remember to write 'acknowledging'.

Definition for "acknowledge" from the google dictionary:

1. accept or admit the existence or truth of.

It's shining through in the fineprint written with invisible ink, but they won't (always) spell it out. Here are some more problems why the myth of punctuated equilibrium is invoked:

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.—Henry Gee (paleontologist, senior editor of Nature magazine)

Caveat: Propaganda isn't "instructive".

Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” (In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.) Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record. Unlike the rather definite statement made by Peter Vlar: "Looking at the fossil record shows clear transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between...."

There are no fossils for the steps in between, that's the problem, each and every fossil proposed has been shown to fall under the category "bedtime story", "wishful speculations" (Franklin M. Harold), biased beliefs, propaganda, fancy storytelling, "just-so stories" (Michael Behe), maybe-so stories, "most likely"-so stories (quoting citations from Phantom423 prior to page 48), twisting and defrauding the fossils presented and not telling the whole story, half-truths, twisted logic, capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and so on. Just like those proposed as "those steps in between" which are discussed in the video below which is a nice example (also that presenting only 3 in the debate below is a complete insult to the intelligence of people who understand you would need gazillions of them to provide some resemblance of evidence for your point that one evolved into another, that there is a "connection through ancestry and descent", to actually see these "clear transitions" from fossil to fossil if you're going from a hyena-like animal to a whale, not 3, not 10, a 100 would probably not even be enough for justifying the description "clear transitions"):

Watch from 6:10 - 8:02 (too bad what should have been given as a response is never given, the facts; the debate is also conveniently cut off by the moderator so that people can't realize how ridiculous it is to present only 3!!! Look at Berlinski's face, propaganda at its finest, Miller has accomplished in giving people the impression, 'I got ye' as he describes it at the end after the rather lame response):

WWF wrestling. Miller climbs in to the ropes, and slamdunks the floor. The crowd of his fans cheer in amazement: "Evidence of evolution!" They shout in repetition. "Evolution wins, slam dunk!" Game over, let's not get to the bottem of the matter that it's just a show. The greatest show on earth according to Dawkins.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

By not being there moments before they were there...

well no... the idea is that when the "universe" was at the moment before the big bang it was infinitely dense...

and before that was said "big crush"... wihch made it infinitely dense... which means the universe existed before this universe...