Jump to content
Science Forums

Just joined, haven't read any postings, but evolutionists can't answer this one!


zmweaver

Recommended Posts

Just joined, haven't read any postings, but evolutionists can't answer this one!

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

How did "life" come to be? An organism must first exist before it can reproduce or evolve. Something that does not exist cannot aspire to exist. Nothing will grow in perfect soil, full sunlight, and plenty of water without first, the organizational input of a seed. Regardless of your personal version of evolution or creation, I would not be writing this, nor would you be reading this, without first, external organizational input from somewhere and somepoint in history! Even if you believe this organizational input came from aliens, they must have got it from somewhere, at some point. My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched.

 

From a mathematicall viewpoint?

 

Why not? All that is required is a state>O; not sentience. After that, it is vacuum eruption from flat space and the uncurling of binding forces' particle wave interactions, to give shape and volume to a point space.

 

Damocles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is a digital phenomenom detected, at a macro-level, in analog form. Reflect on that Skippy and you may see the answer.
This is rather terse. Do you mean

a) it is a digital phenomena - discrete changes in the genes are either there or not there?

:circle: it is detected in analog form - there is generally no clear demarcation between species. It is analogous to a spectrum, where one colour blends into another, so to some extent the differentiation into species is a matter of our classification scheme as much as anything. (Clearly this does not apply for instances where the gene pools have been definitively separated.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a mathematicall viewpoint?

 

Why not? All that is required is a state>O; not sentience. After that, it is vacuum eruption from flat space and the uncurling of binding forces' particle wave interactions, to give shape and volume to a point space.

 

Damocles

 

 

Clarification is required on your part for me to respond to your post. You obviously have a definite position on the topic. Present the logic that lead you to this brief and incomplete conclusion. I prefer not to respond to posts that require me to assume the poster knows what he/she is talking about. A clear explanation of logic (not personal intellectual brevity) results in a solid post worth responding to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by damocles

From a mathematicall viewpoint?

 

Why not? All that is required is a state>O; not sentience. After that, it is vacuum eruption from flat space and the uncurling of binding forces' particle wave interactions, to give shape and volume to a point space.

 

Damocles

 

I have enough enemies.

 

Clarification is required on your part for me to respond to your post. You obviously have a definite position on the topic. Present the logic that lead you to this brief and incomplete conclusion. I prefer not to respond to posts that require me to assume the poster knows what he/she is talking about. A clear explanation of logic (not personal intellectual brevity) results in a solid post worth responding to.

 

A series of questions.

 

What do you know about unbounded continuity?

 

What do you know about discrete continuity?

 

What do you know about point space?

 

What do you know about the mathematical hypothesis that declares that all possible or potential solutions are actually existent?

 

What do you know about the multiple universes hypotheses?

Which ones do you consider possible?

 

Multiple locii, common bounded frame.(Infinite bubbles expanding in the same flatspace oververse at the same time.)

Contiguous(Infinite numbers of universes sharing the same volume point for point but separated by a coincident event horizon but erupting simultaneously from the flatspace and fading away at differing expansion rates[or maybe the same rates, who knows?].)

Singular eruption intervals from flat space in discrete intervals(Erupting Universes that inflate and fade to nothing from flatspace in a soup of no-time one right after the other like a sine function for example.)

 

Do you believe in first cause finity?

 

Do you believe in original design?

 

Do you insist on a pattern maker or do you believe that systemic order can spontaneously organize out of competetive states of being?

 

In short before you accuse me of brevity, do you realize that everything I just wrote is implicit in my, as you concluded, all too brief and incomplete conclusion?

 

Its what I certainly considered when I wrote it.

 

Damocles

 

ADDENDUM;

 

I've been accused of being long winded and pompous in writing style. So I'm trying to work on brevity, clarity, and humility. D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are saying that an incorrect theory (in your view, evolution) can be disproven, yet it has reliable predicted results. IMO that does not sound like a theory that is incorrect.

It is very easy to predict the results since you are looking at them!! In evolutionary terms, we and other creatures we see today ARE the results. If you mean that you can correctly predict what happened 100 or 1,000,000 years ago, so what? I predict that the 2004 Boston Red Sox will break "The Curse of the Bambino." I also predict that we will need to warn the American naval fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii that there will be an aerial attack by Imperial Japanese Zeros and torpedo planes. Predicting the past is easy - and it's yet another oxymoron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have enough enemies.

 

 

 

A series of questions.

 

What do you know about unbounded continuity?

 

What do you know about discrete continuity?

 

What do you know about point space?

 

What do you know about the mathematical hypothesis that declares that all possible or potential solutions are actually existent?

 

What do you know about the multiple universes hypotheses?

Which ones do you consider possible?

 

Multiple locii, common bounded frame.(Infinite bubbles expanding in the same flatspace oververse at the same time.)

Contiguous(Infinite numbers of universes sharing the same volume point for point but separated by a coincident event horizon but erupting simultaneously from the flatspace and fading away at differing expansion rates[or maybe the same rates, who knows?].)

Singular eruption intervals from flat space in discrete intervals(Erupting Universes that inflate and fade to nothing from flatspace in a soup of no-time one right after the other like a sine function for example.)

 

Do you believe in first cause finity?

 

Do you believe in original design?

 

Do you insist on a pattern maker or do you believe that systemic order can spontaneously organize out of competetive states of being?

 

In short before you accuse me of brevity, do you realize that everything I just wrote is implicit in my, as you concluded, all too brief and incomplete conclusion?

 

Its what I certainly considered when I wrote it.

 

Damocles

 

ADDENDUM;

 

I've been accused of being long winded and pompous in writing style. So I'm trying to work on brevity, clarity, and humility. D.

 

 

I don't have any enemies and I was not trying to create one. I just don't think either of your posts are of any benefit to anyone. In fact, your first post only served to stiffle discussion. Forgive me for being blunt, but your two posts come across as "pompous" ego-grooming exercises. The only part of either post that benefited anyone was,

 

"Multiple locii, common bounded frame.(Infinite bubbles expanding in the same flatspace oververse at the same time.) Contiguous(Infinite numbers of universes sharing the same volume point for point but separated by a coincident event horizon but erupting simultaneously from the flatspace and fading away at differing expansion rates[or maybe the same rates, who knows?].) Singular eruption intervals from flat space in discrete intervals(Erupting Universes that inflate and fade to nothing from flatspace in a soup of no-time one right after the other like a sine function for example.)"

 

I understand the vast majority of the terms you used in your series of questions but I do not know exactly how you relate them to the topic at hand. I readily admit I am not a guru on the topic and that is exactly why I am here. "You know more than me and I think you are very, very smart!". I think that is the response your subconscious eagerly seeks, resulting in said enemies and accusations of pomposity. The anonymity of Internet posting encourages people to ignore social standards and allows subconscious motivations to control the mood and content of a post. You can learn something from everyone. I don't think you believe this, so I conclude responding to your questions would be a waste of my time. I will, however, research the brief topics you have presented, so I thank you for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZMWeaver;

 

I am not going to waste your time.

 

I am not that smart nor am I arrogant to pretend that I am. Fact.

 

Nor do I deal in psychological games. I don't have the time. Fact.

 

I put my thought process in the form that is most appropiate for me to answer your question on how did I come to my position on the origin of life.

 

In so doing I asked you if you understood my questions and how I used them to arrive at my conclusions.

 

Apparently you do, but chose to regard it as some kind of attack.

 

If you feel offended, I apologize. It was not my intent.

 

Bluntly however,

 

I believe that origins in an unbounded set of universal possibilities(infinite number of inflations from infinite flatspace/notime) with all possible outcomes permitted will inevitably lead to one outcome(maybe several) that leads to life. It doesn't require a first designer to meet that limited set of first conditions. Nor does it require an original design. All that is necessary is the presence of competitive states of being to force out the separation of physical constants(mass, volume, force: interactions etc.).

 

That you vehemently disagree with this conclusion, is your right.

 

That you attempt to psycho-analyze me(or anyone else) is not.

 

If you wish to prove to me, that there is an original designer, then I invite you to present your proof of necessity.

 

Otherwise, I'll stick with the simplest explanation of origin of life; that it is one out of an infinite set of possible solutions for existence.

 

Damocles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend warned me that online forums can be addictive and he was correct. I just don't have the time to commit to this somewhat positive addiction. I resolved the perceived contradictions I had between my religious faith and scientific understanding about a week after starting the thread, but I kept on posting. Thanks to all for sharing your knowledge and opinions. This is my last post.

 

Damocles,

First of all, my personal comments about you were out of line. I am sorry. My attempt to "psycho-analyze" you was a demonstration in transference. I possessed and, to a certain degree, still possess the very same character flaws I accused you of. I was accused of having these flaws several years ago, so I have taught myself to over-ride and hide them to the best of my ability. By abusing your admission that you are striving to better yourself socially (in your Addendum), I was a dick.

As noted above, I just don't have the time to generate scientifically valid answers to your questions. I do not possess adequate knowledge to be confident in my off-the-cuff answers, and I don't have the time or motivation to research the individual topics. I'll give you one off-the-cuff response, though.

 

I believe an "unbounded set of universal possibilities" requires an initial state of negative entropy, a state of maximum organization. I don't think that the origin of life or the existence of man defies the law of ever-increasing entropy. However, I think both the origin of life and the existence of man required a degree of organization manipulation that cannot occur naturally (similar to the existence of the internal-combustion engine). From an engineering perspective, the existence of humans has much in common with an engineered-system. I cannot design a system that will not eventually fail, so I consider the economics and useful life of the system at hand (for me it is building systems and 50 years is a general rule of thumb). I think God created humans in His own image, with this ability to manipulate entropy as we deem fit (unfortunately, this ability was not accompanied by His infinite wisdom). I think God set in place an initial state of maximum organization. I think He chose at some point in time to manipulate the organization He created, allowing life to exist and giving it the instinct to procreate and survive. Modern technology and the negative, irreversible impact it has on the environment is evidence that man is accelerating the progression from a state of negative entropy to a state of zero organization at an unprecedented rate. I think that God allowed for life and created man with the understanding that these systems will fail at a point in time that He has predetermined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm new too, but I can give you nine evidences against evolution:

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm new too, but I can give you nine evidences against evolution:

 

Let's begin for I am interested in seeing where I am in error. D.

 

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

 

Have you ever heard of the Burgess Shale?

 

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/Burgess_Shale/

 

It is a source of dead-end transitional planforms for animals that didn't make it

 

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

 

Within that fossil bed are planforms of animals that have NO current existent forms at all.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.htmlhttp://www.lpl.arizona.edu/SIC/impact_cratering/Chicxulub/Chicx_title.html

 

Provides a condensed version of the current knowledge base on transitional vertebrate forms.

 

If these are not examples of transistional forms, where have I erred?

 

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

 

How do you explain differentiation among mammals(and the extinction of ground based dinosaurs) after the KT boundary die-off? I am curious for a better explanation.

 

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/SIC/impact_cratering/Chicxulub/Chicx_title.html

 

Animals above a certain size whether crawling swimming or flying are instantly killed by a kinetic shock wave transmitted through the atmosphere, the oceans and through rock by a 100 million megaton yield impact event. Sound cannons do it today as part of DoD DEW tests. Plants, being far more resilient to this kind of soft tissue damage, survive it better and are less size discriminating in the kill-off.

 

Yet I am anxious to learn of a better hypothesis to explain the size discrimination of mobile multi-cellular life kill-off shown at the KT boundary in the fossil record.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weaponry

 

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~kaustin/cecdiscuss/2003/3862.html

 

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

 

Why?

 

Replicant molecular processes are everyday industrial phenomena seen in petroleum diffractionation, carbonization of octete rings of coal and even in the simplest forms of crystalization(granules of salt from dehydration of seawater.)

 

If you can have amino acids in the vacuum of space, where is the problem in finding amino acids in an anaerobic Earth's oceans? You have ethane and methane on Io. These molecules can zip and unzip at demand within common catalytic reactions. In fact a large proportion of the CHON(carbon-hydrogen-oxygen-nitrogen) family of molecules possesses that as an identifying characteristic. I am curious as to why this could not lead to "cells".

 

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

 

You are confusing "missing link" with the "common differentiation point" among the primates and subsequent hominid extinctions?

 

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

 

What nine hominids? Specify these, so I can follow the argument, please?.

 

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

 

If you refer to something as simple and recent as a species distinction between a Neanderthal and a Cro-magnon?

 

There are two tests of which I know. Map the Neanderthal genome(RNA or DNA) and compare it to a Cro-Magnon. If base pair sequence is divergent by more than 0.05% then you will not have viable offspring. Two species of hominid are present. Good luck on finding Neanderthal teeth from which you can extract either RNA or DNA samples though. Failing that, take a brain case cast. If you find cavity divergence in planform of more than 3% between two representative sample sets(more than five skulls per suspected taxonomically similar species) then you may with confidence say two different species are present. In the case of Neandertthal versus Cro-Magnon, the divergence is present.

 

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies. Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

 

Please provide specific examples and again why?

 

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

 

How do you explain the half-life of uranium in the pitchblend tailings from mines?

 

How do you explain the distribution of iridium in the Earth"s crust?

 

How do you explain petroleum, the imprint of fern patterns in coal, in chalk, in gypsum, the presence of volcanoes, of stars, the radius of tjhe universe, the uniform infra-red 2.73 degree K background heat registration, the functioning of both fission and fusion devices, our own biochemistry or even the working of the internal combustion engine if you deny the orders of magnitude of geologiic and universal age?

 

I await with interest your answers.

 

Damocles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest loarevalo

Welcome zmweaver. You will enjoy here. There are some hard-heads, but also some that are searching the truth (I am a hard-head). I wondered If jou had looked over the thread "Theory of beginning of life..." I agree with you on that thing of life. I would ask you, what religion/philosophy do you afiliate with?

 

Here is one of my posts from that thread:

 

No serious cosmologist would assert that the Big Bang was the absolute beginning. Actually, I suppose is reasonable to think that there was no beginning - in any case, String Theory says the Universe is periodic. Why say that there is a beginning, if it's pretty well accepted that God has no beginning or end (or as it says somewhere "my course is an endless round, without beginning or end")?

 

God is a form of life (the perfect form of life), so if God existed before the Big Bang, then life existed, and life is without beginning or end. Obviously, life didn't begin here on Earth. If God created man on Earth, then God himself is life and/or he brought life from somewhere else.

 

If inert matter is eternal (or whatever is not life has always existed) why not think that life is eternal also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...