Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[janesix]

Natural selection is not random. It's selective. If you had any understanding of evolution this would be obvious.
Google it.

The funny thing is, is it was evolution that started my distrust of the current accepted model of the world, biology, physics, as I was a materialist atheist It was only after I really noticed there was something wrong did I begin to get help from the Universe to show me the light.

 

[janesix]

No, there are no "marsupial dogs". Dogs are placental mammals descended from wolves. And why even ask such a question?

You know exactly what I mean. You have no answer, so you are playing on technicalities. Shame on you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The funny thing is, is it was evolution that started my distrust of the current accepted model of the world, biology, physics, as I was a materialist atheist It was only after I really noticed there was something wrong did I begin to get help from the Universe to show me the light.

What specifically did you notice that was "wrong"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know exactly what I mean. You have no answer, so you are playing on technicalities. Shame on you.

No, I really do not. I cannot properly answer poorly asked questions. If you want to understand how and why life evolved into specific species that takes quite a bit of studying.

 

[janesix]

The 'electric universe' is simply woo woo by the scientifically illiterate. I have never heard of "interference theory" but I am willing to bet that it is an oxymoron at best.

Then don't look into it. You don't really want to know. Not many people do. I don't even want to know half the time. Because it takes revelation, and not mere intellect. I don't recommend it because it sucks.

 

[janesix]

What specifically did you notice that was "wrong"?

I was watching a show about the Galapigos Islands. I realized that every animal was getting the specific "mutation" that they needed to survive. I didn't think that was a coincidence.

 

[janesix]

No, I really do not. I cannot properly answer poorly asked questions. If you want to understand how and why life evolved into specific species that takes quite a bit of studying.

Your problem, not mine. I've done my study, I know NeoDarwinian and the modern synthesis is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then don't look into it. You don't really want to know. Not many people do. I don't even want to know half the time. Because it takes revelation, and not mere intellect. I don't recommend it because it sucks.

I have looked into it. It is failed nonsense. You appear to be the one that does not want to know. And no, science is never done through "revelation". That is merely wishful thinking. Like I said, and you just confirmed, it is nonsensical and worthless woo woo.

Tell me, do you use the GPS feature on your phone ever? Do you let it help you find a location?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your problem, not mine. I've done my study, I know NeoDarwinian and the modern synthesis is wrong.

No, you don't. You only believe this. If you had knowledge you could support your claims.

Knowledge is demonstrable. And you appear to do quite a bit of projecting. Why not try to learn instead of merely denying?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was watching a show about the Galapigos Islands. I realized that every animal was getting the specific "mutation" that they needed to survive. I didn't think that was a coincidence.

You watched a show. You have to be kidding me. You do not even understand the basics so you assumed there was some woo woo working.

Let's try to go over some basics. Evolution occurs in populations. There is variation in populations, part of it due to mutations. Every generation gets mutations of the DNA that they received from their parents. You for example have on the order of 100 mutations in the DNA from your parents. Most of those mutations do nothing. Some of them are preserved, some are not. That is about the only "luck" part. Some of the mutations are harmful. Those are quickly selected against (in other words a critter with a badly working leg is less likely to breed than one that has a functional leg). Some mutations are beneficial. Those are more likely to be passed.
Taking a population of only 1,000 birds there will be on the order of 100,000 mutations per generation. It may seem to be "luck" or "coincidence" but with all of those experiments occurring every generation it is not unreasonable that some of them will be beneficial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, Pee Wee was right:

Spoiler

 

[Polymath257]

Ok. I predict that the nearest stars to the sun will have relationships(of distances, diameters) to the sun, and to each other, in either harmonic ratios(octaves, fifths, fourths), in ratios that produce square roots of small numbers(especially 2,3, and 5).

OK, that gets us started. An octave is 2:1, a fifth 3:2, and a fourth 4:3, for ratios

2, 1.5, and 1.33333.

The square roots of 2,3, and 5 are 1.41421, 1.73205, and 2.23607, all to 5 decimal places. The combined list is, in order,

1.33333, 1.41421, 1.5, 1.73205, 2.00000, and 2.23607

The distances from the sun to the nearest stars are

Proxima Centauri: 4.24 light years
Alpha Centauri: 4.36 light years
Barnard's star: 5.96 light years
Luhman 16: 6.50 light years
WISE-0855: 7.26 light years
Wolf 359: 7.56 light years
Lalande 21185: 8.31 light years
Sirius A: 8.31 light years
Sirius B: 8.66 light years
Ross 154: 9.70 light years
Ross 248: 10.29 light years
Epsilon Eridani: 10.45 light years

I can continue, but the ratios of the distances are pretty scattered already and don't get any better for your case. In essence, they are pretty much what we expect for a random distribution of distances.

Care to comment?

 

[Polymath257]

Everything in the universe has electromagnetic properties. I suggest you look into "electric universe" "halton arp" and "interference theory". I do not have time to explain. It has taken years of study. In fact a decade. A decade of being taught actually. The Universe did most of the work.

I have looked into the 'electric universe' and 'Arp's' material. The EU is not taken seriously by any current cosmologist and Arp's ideas have been shown to be wrong.

If you want to discuss E&M, I would suggest starting with either Jackson's book or, if you want a more elementary text, Griffith's book.

Good luck.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, at this point I am arguing in favor of a loving forces that's somehow higher, that's all. At This point I don't even say, it must be a God. Just a loving force.

I don't agree. There is no reason to assume that a substance, just for being a chemical, can and does act on two different parts of the body in two different ways triggering two different events.
It's Possible.
However, it's one assumption plus.
I am not restricting the chemical from acting in those ways, though.
I'm just saying you need 1 assumption extra then.

No, at this point I am arguing in favor of a loving forces that's somehow higher, that's all. At This point I don't even say, it must be a God. Just a loving force.

Yes, I know that you've defined your god being as a loving force. That doesn't change the reality that you are starting off with a confirmation bias for your loving force. You automatically accept that our perception of beauty in nature is evidence for this loving force and discount any other possible explanation.

I don't agree. There is no reason to assume that a substance, just for being a chemical, can and does act on two different parts of the body in two different ways triggering two different events.
It's Possible.
However, it's one assumption plus.
I am not restricting the chemical from acting in those ways, though.
I'm just saying you need 1 assumption extra then

And there's ALSO no reason to assume that some 'loving force' just for being a 'loving force' can and does act on two different parts of the body in two different ways triggering two different events. It's POSSIBLE, however it's one assumption plus.

There's nothing you can claim about your unsubstantiated loving force that I can't claim about my unsubstantiated chemical. As long as all we have are unsubstantiated claims it's impossible to raise the believability of one above the other without exercising a confirmation bias.

At least in the case of my chemical hypothesis we have clear evidence that chemicals do exist that that they are capable of affecting our body and mind in various ways. However there is zero evidence that your special loving force exists or that it can affect a person's mind or body in any manner at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Your problem, not mine. I've done my study, I know NeoDarwinian and the modern synthesis is wrong.

Really? Care to share why they are wrong? What is a particular case that shows them to be wrong? Or, if you prefer, a collection of cases whose statistics goes against them?

 

[Valjean]

Evolution works in exactly the same way, in terms of a buildup of changes.

If all your ancestors of the past 10 million years would hold hands and you'ld go back looking at their appearance one by one, there would be no single individual of which you would be able to say "this one is not a human", while the one right next to it is a human. It doesn't work that way, because evolution is a gradual process.

The same goes with your age indeed.
If you'ld look at a picture of your face from every day of your life, starting as a child and ending as an adult, there would be no single picture of which you would say "in this picture I'm not an adult", while in the picture right next to it you are an adult. It just doesn't work that way.

Here's a nice analogy using color:


View attachment 46802

Sorry if you can't read it, I didn't immediately find a better quality picture.
Anyhow, the text starts out as read and ends in blue. Please, show me the "first" blue word in the paragraph, where the one immediately before it, is still red.

Evolution is the exact same. It is the nature of gradual change.

Plus, each word between the first and last is an intermediate, and the overall direction of change could be seen with a handful of random 'fossil' words, even if not all the words are seen.

 

[Valjean]

Every belief takes faith. We are believers, not knowers.

There is unsupported belief -- faith -- and there are various degrees of evidenced belief. The "evidence" for God is, basically, tradition and folklore, whereas evolution is one of the best evidenced facts in science.

 

[Valjean]

I was watching a show about the Galapigos Islands. I realized that every animal was getting the specific "mutation" that they needed to survive. I didn't think that was a coincidence.

Mutation was not the 1ry driver of the changes, nor were they coincidental.
You don't seem to know how natural selection works. It's not coincidence. It's selection.
Of course the animals adapted to their environments. How would they not? Sexual animals reproduce with natural variation. The offspring differ from each other -- just look at a litter of puppies.

The variation is caused by gene mixing at fertilization, not mutation, and natural proliferation of the better adapted variants, over generations, is what causes the adaptations you noted.

No God is needed, just natural selection -- one of the mechanisms of evolution.

Out of curiosity, how do you think the animals "got the mutations they needed?"
And note -- I ask "how," not "who." Goddidit is not how.
What mechanism do you think accounts for the changes?

 

[Skywalker]

There is unsupported belief -- faith -- and there are various degrees of evidenced belief. The "evidence" for God is, basically, tradition and folklore, whereas evolution is one of the best evidenced facts in science.

Faith can involve evidenced belief. The evidence for the Gospel is based off of historical evidence. Osiris was based off folklore.

Evolution is doubtful because populations need to develop on the individual level before the population level.

 

[Skywalker]

Mutation was not the 1ry driver of the changes, nor were they coincidental.
You don't seem to know how natural selection works. It's not coincidence. It's selection.
Of course the animals adapted to their environments. How would they not? Sexual animals reproduce with natural variation. The offspring differ from each other -- just look at a litter of puppies.

The variation is caused by gene mixing at fertilization, not mutation, and natural proliferation of the better adapted variants, over generations, is what causes the adaptations you noted.

No God is needed, just natural selection -- one of the mechanisms of evolution.

Out of curiosity, how do you think the animals "got the mutations they needed?"
And note -- I ask "how," not "who." Goddidit is not how.
What mechanism do you think accounts for the changes?

Natural selection has limits. Breeding different species of the same family of animal only creates infertile hybrids.