Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

a reply to: cooperton

We both were intelligently designed,

I disagree.

originally posted by: Phage

I disagree.

Aww Phage just because you believe in unintelligent design doesn't strip you of your intelligence. It just shows you're currently thinking unintelligently.

a reply to: Phage

Gee phage guy. Dont you know your on a conspiracy site. And were all just dust in the wind.

But.

EA-RTH. Its based on old dead mesopatanian languages. Kind of like how other languages are just based on old sanskrit.

EA is the god of the waters. You know the bringer of civilization and all that junk, the whole enki and enlil story. EA is enki.

RTH is basically an old form for of saying .corp. Or .org. You name it.

So, earth can literally be translated as Ea's corporation. What can I say. You may have ruled out the fact. But like Charles Fort once said. "The earth is a farm and we are somebody else's property"

Conspiracy brah! Does it unsettle you to know that with all of mankinds achievements. We are in the end. No more then cows on a field chewing the cud?

Or maybe I am making # up.

Or maybe were like the Buddha said. The manifestations of reality and this universe experiencing itself in its many guises. Either way. Evolution to what? I guess we can become a space faring race, then we can finally build shopping malls and MacDonald on planets in galaxies far far away.

Think about it there may be species out there who have never seen a shoping mall, or something as cool as sneakers with light in them. The pinnacle of evolution right there.

Though it would be a long time and alot of effort traveling literally millions of lightyears. Just to continue the tradition of building shopping malls and fast food joints. You know all that stuff that people crave. The answer to the meaning of evolution may just be fast food joints and shopping malls.

Life is all mysterious and stuff like that. Here one moment the most important thing in existence. And the next? Gone. Just dust in the wind. Solar byproducts.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

No matter where you go, there you are.

Nothin ain't worth nothin but it's free.

The grass is always greener in your neighbor's yard.

There's a great big hole in the bottom of the sea.

a reply to: Phage
Well ya. Were else would you be if not were you are at?

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Over yonder, round the next bend.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerraLiga
'Nothing has been created by random chance.'

Take a minute and re-read your sentence. If it was created, it was planned, designed and deliberately produced. Provide evidence where that was the case in anything organic.

Do you mean what evidence is there of our whole, or parts within, our environment, such as the oceans, rivers, and clouds, indicating they were all created/designed this way, deliberately?

You believe that it was so incredibly lucky, miraculous coincidence, at pure random chance, that somehow, at random chance, AIR was created, and by another remarkable coincidence, the air soon expanded out, and over the entire Earth, as well.

So after air was created by random chance, and expanded over the entire Earth, at random chance, somehow, life was first created, on the Earth, and more and more types of life came about, and all by random chance, they all needed that very air, in order to live on Earth, and they did so.

The random creation of air, which randomly covered over Earth, and when life was first created at random, on Earth, it was another amazing coincidence, it used the air to breathe and to live, that's so lucky, because all of this happened by random chance!

No, it is sheer nonsense.

Your terminology is a bit infantile (air is an amalgam of many compounds) but, basically, yes. First 'life', to give it a name other than abiogenesis and to which you can cling on to, was a random synthesis. Everything else was trial and error.

It's OK, I understand. Primitive civilisations also couldn't understand the principles behind natural phenomena so they invented the gods you worship today to explain everything. You've yet to evolve out of that, and I sympathise. I'm hoping the generations that come from your particular genepool will be more advanced.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga


HAHAHA! Oh man, you sure do know how to tell 'em. You must have your crowd in stiches every day.

Judging from your technical and theoretic prowess, I guess you obtained your 'degree' by watching YouTube videos, in which case my son has a degree in Minecraft and my daughter has a Masters in boy bands.

Total bull#e.

Ahh lovely. The hysterics are starting to kick in with you again. You awkwardly laugh loudly because you can't logically defend your assertions. Prove random chance can create human beings from non-life over billions of years. You can't, its pure speculation. Obviously intelligent creatures are far more likely to have been made by something intelligent, rather than unintelligent.

Imagine the terminator robot coming to be by random chance. Absurd. Your unintelligent design theory is garbage. 100billion neurons can not assemble into working synchrony to generate the faculty of consciousness by random chance.

The problem with basic minds like yours is that they always start from the end product when looking at something, anything, and trying to explain how it got there. The Terminator, a computer, a living and breathing organic lifeform. You always start there and you're always incredulous, flummoxed and in total denial.

I hesitate to use the word idiot, but utter ignorance is totally apt.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

they always start from the end product when looking at something, anything, and trying to explain how it got there.

Thats exactly what evolutionists do. They assume evolution is true, and force all observable data to try to fit that narrative. Many are starting to realize it's nonsense though

scientists against evolution

in total denial.

If there were evidence that a population of organisms can change into a distinctly new organism, then I would be in denial. But since there is no such evidence that evolution can actually happen, I would call my approach due diligence.

I hesitate to use the word idiot, but utter ignorance is totally apt.

You believe in unintelligent design. It's literally the most unintelligent assertion ever made about our origins

a reply to: cooperton

None of your "scientists" have published a paper on the subject in a peer-reviewed journal. That says everything we need to know about that crackpot YouTube channel and your "scientists".

If there were evidence that a population of organisms can change into a distinctly new organism

Please quote a single credible scientist who ever said that organisms can change into a distinctly new organism.

You're so embedded with your own lies that you have become irrational. Get some help.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Over yonder, round the next bend.

Well nothing is stopping you to going over yonder, round the next bend. Or possibly some debilitating issues.

But if and when you get there? There you will be.

Because? In a physical universe the only constant is change. If it weren't so? Well none of us would be here now would we?

a reply to: TerraLiga

Dude he does have a point.

And regardless off whatever you guys are talking about because I aint bothering reading into it.

But the chances that DNA or the composition of the earth atmosphere to the very molecules in the oceans in in your body. The chances that all of that would happen by random? By things bumping into eachother?

Are pretty dam near astronomical. I mean you could live for a hundred years, and play the big lottery every single weak of those hundred years, and you would win each time the jackpot. Long long long long long long long time before even the chances that something like the string code of DNA just assembles itself by random bumping into other molecules.

Basically the universe may implode before that happens. The sun surely would go cold nova, disintegrating this planet. And chances are still that it would not happen by random chance.

That's not even close to an accurate simile. Nothing was trying to 'win' anything from the outset. Nothing is destined to be, and there is no fate. You're looking from the front, as always. Look behind what's in front of you and follow the line all the way back, as far as you can.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

But the chances that DNA or the composition of the earth atmosphere to the very molecules in the oceans in in your body. The chances that all of that would happen by random? By things bumping into eachother?

Science NEVER said that everything happens because of randomness. Where did you get that idea anyway? A textbook? An article? Or from Cooperton?

Buy a molecular biology book and READ it. Here's a suggestion:

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=molecular+biology+textbook&qid=1619440036&sr=8 -2

There is no randomness in our observable world, we just lack the informational background to comprehend the mechanisms that led to the situation we think happened randomly.

To understand this, one first needs to decouple from the experience alone and understand human perception. Understand how we humans compute these perceptions. We humans look for patterns, that's how we learn. If we can not find a pattern we make up a reason to satisfy and calm ourselves.

That's how angst works. Being scared by perception, that is if you see something that doesn't make sense our mind does weird stuff to righten this out. It's directly threatening our reality and it's easier to say that something happened "random" than saying "I don't understand what's behind this".

Both is not the same. While we don't know the mechnisms behind randomness, wich would be a paradox in itself, we can give the situation a name and abstract it on a different, virtual layer that doesn't shake our worldview as much.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga

they always start from the end product when looking at something, anything, and trying to explain how it got there.

Thats exactly what evolutionists do. They assume evolution is true, and force all observable data to try to fit that narrative. Many are starting to realize it's nonsense though

scientists against evolution

in total denial.

If there were evidence that a population of organisms can change into a distinctly new organism, then I would be in denial. But since there is no such evidence that evolution can actually happen, I would call my approach due diligence.

I hesitate to use the word idiot, but utter ignorance is totally apt.

You believe in unintelligent design. It's literally the most unintelligent assertion ever made about our origins

No, science tries to explain how something happened the way it did by looking at evidence in the available data. If you had a scientific degree, as you claim, you would know this. Evolutionary biologists can see clear evidence in the DNA of all organisms that lead to a common source. All organisms. Related. All of them. Your approach is not diligent, it's blindfolded by your religion.

I absolutely do not believe in unintelligent design - I do not believe in any design at all.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

No, science tries to explain how something happened the way it did by looking at evidence in the available data. If you had a scientific degree, as you claim, you would know this.

There has never been an evident example of a population of organisms evolving into something distinctly new. Since that has been shown to not be possible, as shown by countless generations of artificial selection failing to evolve a population of organisms, then evolution as it is theorized could not be responsible for the origin of species. You just believe it to be true without evidence. It's textbook unscientific.

Evolutionary biologists can see clear evidence in the DNA of all organisms that lead to a common source. All organisms. Related.

Yeah it's the common source is the Coder of the genetic code. Genetic code doesn't code itself. Unless you have an example of code being upgraded by random chance? Pitch the idea to Microsoft, tell them that random chance iterated millions of times is better than intelligent computer programmers at creating intelligible sequences to execute functions.

I absolutely do not believe in unintelligent design - I do not believe in any design at all.

All of the cosmos perpetuate in clockwork fashion. The human mitochondrion is like a hydrogen fuel cell. biological organisms are self-replicable and self-healing... imagine if Ford was able to grasp such technology. Biological organisms and our earthly home is so clearly designed for anyone not drenched in nihilist propaganda that has been trying to tell us we are meaningless since birth.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Please quote a single credible scientist who ever said that organisms can change into a distinctly new organism.

That's literally the thesis of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", and also currently the main point of evolutionary theory. It insists that over time populations of organisms can change, so much so that it has led to the diversity of all biological life.

When you argue solely against Darwin's book, you are taking the mainstream position.

Darwin knew nothing at all about genetic drift, allele frequencies, lateral gene transfer, etc.
All he had to go on was mutation and natural selection, so that's what he tried to explain it with.
You are railing against an hypothesis that was obsolete over half a century ago.

That speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge (and interest) in these matters.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
When you argue solely against Darwin's book, you are taking the mainstream position.

Darwin knew nothing at all about genetic drift, allele frequencies, lateral gene transfer, etc.
All he had to go on was mutation and natural selection, so that's what he tried to explain it with.
You are railing against an hypothesis that was obsolete over half a century ago.


Harte

I assume this was aimed at me. The second part of the sentence said "...and also currently the main point of evolutionary theory". Of course Darwin's theory has developed. Phantom was trying to argue that evolution doesn't claim that a population of organisms can change.

originally posted by: cooperton


Thats exactly what evolutionists do. They assume evolution is true, and force all observable data to try to fit that narrative. Many are starting to realize it's nonsense though

scientists against evolution

Did you just seriously post a link to a video about scientists claiming to be skeptical about Darwinian evolution?

Its 2021.

Darwinian evolution went out with the starting handle.