Actually, what pfrankinstein is saying does sound familiar. Evolution happens on many levels in many things; it's not limited to a biological process. There's stellar evolution, cultural evolution, industrial and technological evolution, and so on. There may well be cosmic evolution between universes and consciousness evolution of minds!

Repeat after me children *Everything that is new it must be woo. Everything that is new must be........

Very poor first impression of the forum, i mean, surely there must be some 'rational skeptics' with the ability to THINK analyse and use logic.

Clearly our perspective, the way we view the subject of evolution has shifted, so i ask can that perspective mutate, advance, become broadened out, shift some more. Judging by the petulant crap responses thus far, it would seem not.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:Repeat after me children *Everything that is new it must be woo. Everything that is new must be........

Very poor first impression of the forum, i mean, surely there must be some 'rational skeptics' with the ability to THINK analyse and use logic.

Clearly our perspective, the way we view the subject of evolution has shifted, so i ask can that perspective mutate, advance, become broadened out, shift some more. Judging by the petulant crap responses thus far, it would seem not.

Paul.

I don't believe that it's your first impression of the forum.

Paul.

PS: Jay Wilson I'm loving the effort that went into the symmetry of that last post. Symmetry is a beautiful thing.

pfrankinstein wrote:Very poor first impression of the forum, i mean, surely there must be some 'rational skeptics' with the ability to THINK analyse and use logic.

Well, provide something the skeptics here can work with. What you have said so far is a little abstract and tenuously linked. It needs more juicy filling. There's lots of puffy pastry, but no filling yet.

pfrankinstein wrote:Clearly our perspective, the way we view the subject of evolution has shifted,

Shifted how? More detail, please. Many of us here cannot read minds.

pfrankinstein wrote:so i ask can that perspective mutate, advance, become broadened out, shift some more.

How? Explain. Expand. Examples? More detail, please.

pfrankinstein wrote:Paul.

Jay.

JayWilson wrote:Shifted how? More detail, please. Many of us here cannot read minds.

I knew you were going to say that.

Paul.

Thommo wrote:

JayWilson wrote:Shifted how? More detail, please. Many of us here cannot read minds.

I knew you were going to say that.

Paul.

I feel violated.

Paul.
Jay.

Sock puppet fo sho.

pfrankenstein is not a sockpuppet. He is familiar to most of you from RDF, where he was known as paullesq.

Animavore wrote:Ah! I get it!
It's a play on pzombie. Isn't it?

Neh, April fool, no doubt!

Truth disco.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:There might possibly be something in what you say, but I have not the faintest fucking clue what it might be because I cannot work out what the fuck it is that you are attempting to communicate. My advice to you is to start from the beginning, perhaps utilising things like paragraphs and context, rather than the incoherent disconnected babble we've seen thus far.

What part of the statement 'one bang = one process' are you struggling with?

Metaphorical supposition.

Is it possible to shake 'Darwin's tree' back to the big bang and forward into the minds of men, to see if an apple will fall.

Where did 'natural selection' come from Goldenmane?

Try to understand, if 'one bang = one process' then 'selection' must have began at the beginning.

Paul

You're still making no fucking sense.

I could try to work out what the hell you are attempting to drive at, but I don't actually give enough of a shit to bother. See, the thing about communication is that it is up to the person speaking to try to make some fucking sense - otherwise, it isn't communication, so much as making meaningless noise for (apparently) the purpose of self-satisfaction.

I'm all for masturbation, but I'm not so keen on seeing someone do it in public without an actual invitation. You could, for example, have posted a warning.

Goldenmane wrote:
You're still making no fucking sense.

Don't worry about it, he will never make sense. I know this member since RDF, and he never even tried to make any sense...

One bang rules one process. Why can't one bang pace next to one process? One bang threatens one process with a developer. One process drinks the schedule.

Why can't one bang earth a transformed mystic? Why does one process catalog one bang? How does one process develop the atheist? The novice system fudges.

One bang sighs the asset. One bang refrains beneath one process. A pun heads one bang after the arch. One process surprises the printed soldier over a happier mythology. The marvelous academic runs with one process. The dedicate manner warms to the steel.


Well it makes just as much sense.

Fenrir wrote:One bang rules one process. Why can't one bang pace next to one process? One bang threatens one process with a developer. One process drinks the schedule.

Why can't one bang earth a transformed mystic? Why does one process catalog one bang? How does one process develop the atheist? The novice system fudges.

One bang sighs the asset. One bang refrains beneath one process. A pun heads one bang after the arch. One process surprises the printed soldier over a happier mythology. The marvelous academic runs with one process. The dedicate manner warms to the steel.


Well it makes just as much sense.

I'm so pleased to see that particular form of response still lives. I spent quite some time crafting the first version of it that I ever saw some years ago, and I'm gratified it hasn't been lost.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Animavore wrote:Ah! I get it!
It's a play on pzombie. Isn't it?

Neh, April fool, no doubt!

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

Statement: The big bang a single beginning denotes a single process, that process = evolution.. = Most basic premise.

Conclusion: If MY 'most basic premise' holds true then 'our' understanding of 'evolution/selection' is lacking and incomplete.

How so lacking? Between the bb and and the emergence of life no type of evolution/selection has been recognised by science.

Previously i have indicated that three types of evolution/selection operate on three different levels explain our universe [>>>].

The three types of selection i outline appear in chronological order in are keeping with the arrow of time, also the movement is in keeping with the rise of literal choosing/waking up.

-0 Smolins 'Cosmological natural selection'.

0, BB.

1, Newtonian 'Primal selection'. Non-conscious.

2, Darwinian 'Natural selection'. Subconscious.

3, 'Cognitive Selection'. Conscious.

[cheek] My Pseudoscience = perfectly reasoned logic.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Animavore wrote:Ah! I get it!
It's a play on pzombie. Isn't it?

Neh, April fool, no doubt!

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

Statement: The big bang a single beginning denotes a single process, that process = evolution.. = Most basic premise.

Conclusion: If MY 'most basic premise' holds true then 'our' understanding of 'evolution/selection' is lacking and incomplete.

How so lacking? Between the bb and and the emergence of life no type of evolution/selection has been recognised by science.

Previously i have indicated that three types of evolution/selection operate on three different levels explain our universe [>>>].

The three types of selection i outline appear in chronological order in are keeping with the arrow of time, also the movement is in keeping with the rise of literal choosing/waking up.

-0 Smolins 'Cosmological natural selection'.

0, BB.

1, Newtonian 'Primal selection'. Non-conscious.

2, Darwinian 'Natural selection'. Subconscious.

3, 'Cognitive Selection'. Conscious.

[cheek] My Pseudoscience = perfectly reasoned logic.

Paul.

April Fool's Day was yesterday, you can knock it off now.

Goldenmane wrote:I'm all for masturbation, but I'm not so keen on seeing someone do it in public without an actual invitation. You could, for example, have posted a warning.

Back and forth, too and fro often results in explosive results.

Is it possible to shake 'Darwin's tree' back to the big bang and forward into the minds of men, to see if an apple will fall.

Regress Darwin's theory back to the big bang and forward into the minds of men [cognitive selection] to gain the exploded view.

Exploded view = everything evolves.

Paul.

trubble76 wrote:April Fool's Day was yesterday, you can knock it off now.

True or False.

To have basic 'evolution' of any kind [evolution = modification descent by means of selection]. There must be a means of storing knowledge, and also the means of passing on that knowledge.

Inorganic material/rocks interacting in outer space do NOT store knowledge or pass knowledge on.

Well.

Paul.

You should have a conversation with the timecube guy. If think you will understand each other very well.

Scar wrote:You should have a conversation with the timecube guy. If think you will understand each other very well.

Take a bath, have a soak, create an altered state of awareness for yourself and think.

Envisage a single chain of 'cause and effect' that begins with the big bang that leads directly to you.

Chiefly how many different types of environment does the chain pass through to result in you being there as a thinking man.

From the inorganic to the organic to your cognitive ability to think about the concept.

Chiefly three different domains, three types of material, three types of evolution/selection.

Paul.