Irony of the evolutionary belief

[ImmortalFlame]

that does not answer the question...

Actually, it did.

show us the intermediatory for the next evoutionary generation of humans...where are they???

What does that mean? How can I show you an an intermediate state that doesn't exist yet?

The evoution of man has gone from ape like to us...from walking on all fours to on twos...more upright, but where is the next progression shown? (Is it black skin to white...whats next?)

Evolution doesn't work "one feature at a time". It's population-wide. It's not like updating a video game.

"Today, in patch 1.37, we have added a fifth finger to solve the numerous issues users were having holding bananas."

I read a news story only yesterday saying cancer rates in younger people are on the increase, are you claiming thats an improvement?

What on earth are you talking about? What does that have to do with evolution?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It seems that evolutionists, who talk so much about science, forget how it works.

The nine main characteristics of science are: Objectivity, verifiable, ethical neutrality, systematic exploration, reliability, precision, abstraction and predictability.

Each supposed new species, presumably arising from a previous species related to others and so, would offer evolutionists such an immense wealth of information that it would be very easy to predict what the next expected changes would be.

Or is the doctrine not so scientific?

Gotta wonder. But I'm sure some may have the "answer."

No, you don't gotta wonder! What is predicted is change driven by environmental and other pressures. The problem is, in a changeable world, you know those pressures will come -- but you don't know in what form. You need to know what the pressure is before you can even begin to predict what changes may best serve organisms to cope with those pressures.

God, this should be obvious to a 10 year old.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Why can't medical science be the answer to prayer?"

That's one way to look at it if you would see the treatment improving your condition as the prayer answer. But improvement doesn't always occur.

That is true. Sometimes the result is the result you don't want. I'm not claiming that prayer is always answered with the answer a person wants.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because you have explicitly disagreed in previous posts

Once again, you seem desperate to misrepresent everything.

Everybody here can go back and read what was actually said.

For example you explicitly said that there is no evidence that you are a father, because all we have is your claim.

Yes. Which has nothing to do with the previous point.

Now you are using creative language to safe yourself………….

No.

Why don’t you simply admit your mistake?

There's nothing to admit. There is only your intellectual dishonest attempt at misrepresenting what was said.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have tyo be joking……………

Nope.

..you are not remotely qualified to have this conversation with me,

if you are not willing to admit simple and trivial mistakes there is no hope for any reusable conversation between us.

Says the man who insists on misrepresenting people seemingly only for the sake of inflating his own ego.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Pick one premise that you would claim is wrong

Develop your argument and explain why you think is wrong

Changing the language once again.

I didn't say anything about anything "being wrong".

You made an argument. It includes premises.
Arguments with unsupported premises aren't worth more then toilet paper.

Support your premises.

You haven´t done that and if you don’t follow this simple instruction you will not have a conversation with me…………..

You can stop with the arrogance. You are not in any position to give me "instructions".

Your argument had premises. Your argument is worthless if your premises are unsupported.

Support your premises. All of them.
If you can't or wont, then I guess I'll just reject your "argument" at face value on the count of your premises being unsupported.

Fine by me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Granted the designer would be intelligent speceless timeless and immaterial

That's very consistent with something that doesn't exist.

Scientific consensus……….in order for atoms and molecules to exist multiple i variables and constants need to have very specific values

I'll await your demonstration that no other possible combination of variables is capable of supporting the existence of atoms and molecules or other similar structures.

Good luck with testing that infinite amount of possibilities.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Take a look around you next time you are out in a large shopping center...do you see any slow change to the next step in evolution for humanity?

Is this meant to be a serious jab at evolution theory?

The reason for my inclusion of cancer here is a simple one...our bodies are not finding solutions to cancer...we are spending billions of dollars each year around the world desperately trying to find artificial medical solutions to the problem that evolution clearly is unable to solve through natural selection!

What makes you think cancer is a problem that requires an evolutionary solution?
Cancer is not a problem that is putting any significant stress on the chances of a species' survival. So there is not selection pressure against it.
Cancer is primarily a problem much later in life, long after reproduction already occurred. Most cancers do not stop genes from being spread.

Are you aware also how cancer has been affecting living things for eons already?

For example: https://www.science.org/content/art...6472541199F70A4C98A6%40AdobeOrg|TS=1713534499

That's a 240 million year old animal that died with bone cancer.

Not sure if you know this or not, but the concesus i have been given a few years ago by a medical researcher who worked in Newcastle University under a professor who was studying cancer was that given enough time, we will all die of cancer eventually!

Sure. After we already reproduced as most cancers only hit us later in life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

show me a human with an evolutionary gain please...

Humans in tibet have unique genetic sequences that prevent them from suffering from altitude sickness.

like a precursor to us growing wings, or with limbs showing an evolutionary advance towards the ability to jump like a flea,

or what about the ability to swing through trees like a monkey (oh hang on, we've gone backwards there)!!!

Or "forward" from the perspective of our species as that was a result of evolving bipedalism which freed up the hands to evolve more refined motoric skill which in turn allowed for finer tool making.

The evolutionary image below shows physcial progresson...but it has clearly stopped...oh ****e, whats happened?

It didn't stop. Evolution never stops. But if you expect to see enormous physical change in a single life time, you are at best thinking about a strawman of evolution. And at worst you are engaging in willful ignorance.

The problem is, there are no modern examples of the next level of progression or intermediatories between either...and there must be if the theory is true!

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do the priests of evolution predict the next posthuman species?

Going by the "discussions" I have on forums such as this one, I sometimes fear some type of idiocracy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It seems that evolutionists, who talk so much about science, forget how it works.

The nine main characteristics of science are: Objectivity, verifiable, ethical neutrality, systematic exploration, reliability, precision, abstraction and predictability.

Each supposed new species, presumably arising from a previous species related to others and so, would offer evolutionists such an immense wealth of information that it would be very easy to predict what the next expected changes would be.

Or is the doctrine not so scientific?

Spoken like someone who is proud of not having a clue.


The direction of natural selection is 110% dependend on how the habitat / environment changes.
So at best you can only speculate about the future.
And if you would know with certainty how the environment will change, it still remains to be seen what kind of creative solutions evolution would come up with through random mutation, eventhough some overall informed speculation could certainly be done.

 

[Pogo]

It seems that evolutionists, who talk so much about science, forget how it works.

The nine main characteristics of science are: Objectivity, verifiable, ethical neutrality, systematic exploration, reliability, precision, abstraction and predictability.

Each supposed new species, presumably arising from a previous species related to others and so, would offer evolutionists such an immense wealth of information that it would be very easy to predict what the next expected changes would be.

Or is the doctrine not so scientific?

We are losing our wisdom teeth as they are more harmful than useful in the current humans environment.

The absence of wisdom teeth, known as third molar agenesis, is more pronounced in some cultures and other countries. Studies show that 41% of Koreans, 38.4% of Bangladeshis, and 11.5% of Indians don't have wisdom teeth. It is also interesting to note that 100% of indigenous Mexicans never grow wisdom teeth.May 16, 2023

 

[leroy]

Why don’t experts back you up?

Can you quote an expert that would deny any of the math or any factual claim that I have provided?......no so stop making things up

 

[leroy]

Good point. What does FT mean, as you've been using it here?

to say that gravity is FT Simply means that if gravity would have been a Little bit stronger or weaker, the universe would have evolved such that no life could have not ever appear……………for example if gravity would have been 1% stronger the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole, soon after the big bang , which means that not even atoms would exist in this universe (if you dont have atoms you can´t have life)

there are a few docens of similar examples other than gravity.

(Is make a basket the correct term for basketball?)

Basket ball is a good analogy, in order to score points you have to throw the ball and make a basket……… but in order to do that you have to throw the ball at a very specific speed with a very specific angle at a very specific distance, very specific direction etc………………such that if you change a single value, (say the angle) for as little as 1% the ball will fail to hit the basket and no points will be scored.

So the argument is that if you are resting in some bench in some park and you suddenly see how a ball made a basket, you would be justify in concluding that someone throw the ball with the intention of scoring points……… even if you didn’t saw the basketball player, even if there is no prior evidence for anyone in the park, the observation of a ball making a basket would be stogn evidence that there is a basket ball player. (design)

 

[leroy]

Says the man who insists on misrepresenting people seemingly only for the sake of inflating his own ego.

You said that

1 you are a father

2 I replied…. Well that is just a claim , but it is evidence (implying that sometimes claims are evidence)

3 you responded, No my claim of me being a father is not evidence

What part am I misrepresenting?

 

[F1fan]

Can you quote an expert that would deny any of the math or any factual claim that I have provided?......no so stop making things up

I already posted a video where experts explain how fine tuning is bogus. You must have ignored it.

You are the one promoting fine tuning. You have the burden to explain why it isn’t science. Or why experts don’t agree it’s valid.

You continue this arrogant narrative of assuming your opinion and beliefs are true and the better educated have to prove you wrong. And when we do you ignore it.

 

[leroy]

Changing the language once again.

I didn't say anything about anything "being wrong".

Yes that is the issue, you don´t claim that anything is wrong nor correct, you keep your view vague and ambiguous………..for this reason I am not interested in a conversation

".

Your argument had premises. Your argument is worthless if your premises are unsupported.

I am assuming that my opponent has a general idea on what the argument is, what FT means, and how the premises are supported.

I am only interested in having conversation with people that understand the argument and have a clear view on what premise is likely to be wrong………….If that is not you, then we wont have a conversation.

This is just a forum, it is insane to ask me to develop such a complex argument from zero, I would need like 20 word pages to develop something modeless descend, …………..conversations in forums presuppose that both know about the argument and the evidence and any discussions should be focus on the specific areas of disagreement………….or alteast this is what I expect in forum…………if you have different expectations, if you think arguments have to be developed from zero in forums, then we are simply have different expectations and we shouldn’t have a conversation

 

[leroy]

I already posted a video where experts explain how fine tuning is bogus.

But for some reason you refuse to explain the supposed refutation in that video…………

stop making things up, stop posting random links and videos ................ if you have an argument against the FT argument please share.....................if not then please stop quoting my comments

 

[Subduction Zone]

But for some reason you refuse to explain the supposed refutation in that video…………

stop making things up, stop posting random links and videos ................ if you have an argument against the FT argument please share.....................if not then please stop quoting my comments

I know that it is hopeless but I will take a shot.

The essential problem with the Fine Tuna Argument is that one is assuming that the values that they refer to can be tuned. We do not know if they can vary or not. They skip a huge burden of proof by making that assumption. That assumption makes it just an intricate argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy that you should recognize.

There have been other constants in the past that also looked "fined tuned". You will not see them in the fined tuned argument because we understand why they are those values. For example the relationships that one finds in Kepler's Laws. Why are they those values? That was solved when Newton came along with his Universal Gravitation.

A more recent example is one of the constants that is still used by mistake, ignorance, or just by dishonesty is the rate of expansion of the early universe. Have you heard of it, the one where if it was any faster it would have spread out too fast for life to form and any slower and it would have collapsed? In a debate with Low Bar Bill, Sean Carroll told Craig how that problem has been solved by solving the Einstein's Special Relativity for the start of the Big Bang. The "constant" is a solution to a problem. It did not have varying different possible values.

To be a legitimate argument you would have to take each constant and prove that they could have had other values. No one has ever done that to my knowledge.

 

[F1fan]

But for some reason you refuse to explain the supposed refutation in that video…………

Others have explained the flaws of FT, which is covered in the video, which you ignored. You have rejected the criticism that the educated have provided. It’s on you to learn and adapt to credible knowledge.

stop making things up, stop posting random links and videos ................ if you have an argument against the FT argument please share.....................if not then please stop quoting my comments

My, look at the demands that will only serve your ongoing agenda and ignorance.

How about you stop being so stubborn.