hackenslash wrote:
And should Paul ever put his thesis on a rigorous footing, get it all measured and calculated, Latexed up and presented to Phil. Trans., his rejection letter will contain a single comment:

Congratulations! You just discovered the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Mhmmmm

On the 'evolution versus creationism' forum.

https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control ... 76#m609876

pfrankinstein wrote:

Some other user wrote:Theory of Evolution solidly proves Biblical Creationism to be wrong as a matter of simple fact.

Sadly 'evolution' does not answer the question of first cause.

Also. There is mention of a tree of life in the bible, Darwin encapsulated his theory with a 'tree of life' metaphor.

Paul.

Someone's not been telling the truth.

Spearthrower wrote:Mhmmmm

On the 'evolution versus creationism' forum.

https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control ... 76#m609876

pfrankinstein wrote:

Some other user wrote:Theory of Evolution solidly proves Biblical Creationism to be wrong as a matter of simple fact.

Sadly 'evolution' does not answer the question of first cause.

Also. There is mention of a tree of life in the bible, Darwin encapsulated his theory with a 'tree of life' metaphor.

Paul.

Someone's not been telling the truth.

I'm gonna take this as proof that, when I called this Kent Hovind's stages of evolution but taken seriously, that I was 100% correct.

Gimme this win, it's mine

It's like a garbled half-remembered, partially understood rendition of Hovind's drool done by someone even less mentally competent than Hovind!

Isn't that just Eric Hovind?

Spearthrower wrote:Mhmmmm

On the 'evolution versus creationism' forum.

https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control ... 76#m609876

pfrankinstein wrote:

Some other user wrote:Theory of Evolution solidly proves Biblical Creationism to be wrong as a matter of simple fact.

Sadly 'evolution' does not answer the question of first cause.

Also. There is mention of a tree of life in the bible, Darwin encapsulated his theory with a 'tree of life' metaphor.

Paul.

Someone's not been telling the truth.

As predicted, his search for a first cause is religiously motivated. He hasn't read the memo that ALL first-cause formulations were put to bed by a certain Herr Einstein in 1905.

Greg the Grouper wrote:Isn't that just Eric Hovind?

Never mind the previous one, this gets the win.

Greg the Grouper wrote:Isn't that just Eric Hovind?

Hovind's drool? Yes, yes he is.

A unified theory of EVOLUTION from the naturalist perspective.

Imagine that.

But then you can't unify a one trick pony if nothing else relates.
That is exactly what we have today.


https://youtu.be/cWGE9Gi0bB0


The physicists shakes hands with the biologist.

The subject of EVOLUTION as understood today is an island.

It stands alone detached from the rest of cosmos.

It does not flow.


Paul.

hackenslash wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Mhmmmm

On the 'evolution versus creationism' forum.

https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control ... 76#m609876

pfrankinstein wrote:

Some other user wrote:Theory of Evolution solidly proves Biblical Creationism to be wrong as a matter of simple fact.

Sadly 'evolution' does not answer the question of first cause.

Also. There is mention of a tree of life in the bible, Darwin encapsulated his theory with a 'tree of life' metaphor.

Paul.

Someone's not been telling the truth.

As predicted, his search for a first cause is religiously motivated. He hasn't read the memo that ALL first-cause formulations were put to bed by a certain Herr Einstein in 1905.

I agree with Einstein. Without it science is lame.

I'm not attempting to answer the first cause question. The single process sample I see is pristine, no God no aliens just nature.

Paul

pfrankinstein wrote:I agree with Einstein. Without it science is lame.

Good for you. I'd be more inclined to agree with him if he had any authority in the matter, and even then only slightly so. It's not like he can provide the universal constant relating the two, nor present the partial differentials describing their co-evolution.

As it happens, Einstein is probably the best example of precisely why science needs to remain divorced from religion. It was religion, his purely emotional conviction that the universe was eternal and unchanging, that led him to what he admitted was his 'greatest scientific blunder'. He went on to supervene this blunder with an absolute howler in his religiously-motivated insistence that the universe couldn't be probabilistic in nature, despite the work of Darwin, Boltzmann and others - HIMSELF INCLUDED - before him showing that it must be so. This religion, he wasted most of his latter career on.

Imagine the work he could have gotten on with had he just shed these religious beliefs and cracked on with finding a way to get QM and GR to play nice...

pfrankinstein wrote:A unified theory of EVOLUTION from the naturalist perspective.

Already have one, thanks. It's called 'the modern synthesis' and incorporates anatomy, genetics, and various other disciplines like biogeography.

pfrankinstein wrote:Imagine that.

Or, you know, learn stuff so your ignorance doesn't limit your comprehension.

pfrankinstein wrote:But then you can't unify a one trick pony if nothing else relates.
That is exactly what we have today.

You furiously fapping in public?

pfrankinstein wrote:
The physicists shakes hands with the biologist.

You're nearly exactly a century late - we'll wait while you catch up with current knowledge.

pfrankinstein wrote:The subject of EVOLUTION as understood today is an island.

It stands alone detached from the rest of cosmos.

It does not flow.


Paul.

Ignorant fappery masquerading as knowledge. Your confidence and arrogance vastly outweighs your knowledge and competence.

... there used to be a way to delete posts shortly after posting them, no?

Spearthrower wrote:
You're nearly exactly a century late - we'll wait while you catch up with current knowledge.

My mistake - your ignorance is just 80 years behind the times. Given that includes the preponderance of modern science though, I shan't be holding my breath waiting for you to garner a fucking clue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F

hackenslash wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:I agree with Einstein. Without it science is lame.

Good for you. I'd be more inclined to agree with him if he had any authority in the matter, and even then only slightly so. It's not like he can provide the universal constant relating the two, nor present the partial differentials describing their co-evolution.

As it happens, Einstein is probably the best example of precisely why science needs to remain divorced from religion. It was religion, his purely emotional conviction that the universe was eternal and unchanging, that led him to what he admitted was his 'greatest scientific blunder'. He went on to supervene this blunder with an absolute howler in his religiously-motivated insistence that the universe couldn't be probabilistic in nature, despite the work of Darwin, Boltzmann and others - HIMSELF INCLUDED - before him showing that it must be so. This religion, he wasted most of his latter career on.

Imagine the work he could have gotten on with had he just shed these religious beliefs and cracked on with finding a way to get QM and GR to play nice...

If I had more time to study I would read science not the bible.

I do not see enough good in the world to say one way or another.




Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
You're nearly exactly a century late - we'll wait while you catch up with current knowledge.

My mistake - your ignorance is just 80 years behind the times. Given that includes the preponderance of modern science though, I shan't be holding my breath waiting for you to garner a fucking clue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F

And your faulty reckoningwas 80 years in the making.

Tell me again how the Darwinian process appeared as if by magic.

No wherefrom, no wheretoo explanation about it?

Just appeared asif by magic.. Totallytally out of the blue.

Your ignorance of the subject tickles me frankly.

https://youtu.be/RLTDpewIpfw

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
You're nearly exactly a century late - we'll wait while you catch up with current knowledge.

My mistake - your ignorance is just 80 years behind the times. Given that includes the preponderance of modern science though, I shan't be holding my breath waiting for you to garner a fucking clue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F

And your faulty reckoningwas 80 years in the making.

Tell me again how the Darwinian process appeared as if by magic.

No wherefrom or wheretoo explanation about it?

Just appeared by magic.. out of the blue.

I explained this to you 15 fucking years ago. You're reifying an abstract description of a suite of interactions. Absent the conditions, absent the components of these interactions, those interactions did not occur, they weren't there, they were not hanging about in Platonic space waiting for life to form.

You're acting as if the fact that something is possible in the universe therefore logically means it had a beginning at the advent of the universe.

This is just arse water. Irrational, illogical, arse-about-tit thinking.

I've tried being kind, informative, and even helpful to you in the past, but it's not fucking worth it - you're not fucking worth it. You're not interested in learning anything, you're pretending to yourself that he stunted view you offer is all-encompassing when all it's really encompassing is your ignorance.

But it's utter arse water, Paul. You're not the fucking Messiah, your idea is shite, painfully stupid, and you need to get a fucking grip on yourself before you waste this life thinking that this nonsense makes you special.

It has already been explained to you so many times a fucking rock would have had a glimmer of understanding by now that the fundamental forces in this universe ARE the universe, that's what it fucking means. So of course anything that DOES happen, CAN happen - you seem to have stunned yourself senseless for at least 15 years with this outlandish discovery!

But that doesn't mean that Darwinian selection can be claimed to have originated in a universe ABSENT the conditions and components of the very interactions which we label 'Darwinian selection', you know, like LIFE!

Instead, as has been explained to you already, and if you were genuinely competent and interested you would have stopped yapping and run off to educate yourself looooong ago - instead, what you need to be reading up on and garnering a basic fucking clue about are the thermodynamic properties of the universe, how these shape and direct interactions, how disequilibria like proton gradients create, shape, and constrain the huge panoply of possible interactions.

The conditions at the advent of the expansion of the universe weren't even relevant to star formation, Paul. There are boundary changes, state changes that have no real relationship with the states that notionally caused them to be.

If you refuse to even try and engage in this nuanced and elegant discovery of how our universe actually works, then your loss is made only bigger by your foolish pretense that you know what you're talking about. Get over yourself, plumb your ignorance, revel in true discovery and fucking grow man - fifteen years of your 1 life wasted on this buggery.

pfrankinstein wrote:Tell me again how the Darwinian process appeared as if by magic.

It's not a thing to appear, it's a process emergent from the behaviours of evolved entities. All already done in this thread.

An emergent corollary of the process of increasing entropy.

Tell him we already got one the dirty English pig dog........

That be you Dawkins.

Paul

Unified didn't know it had been separated.