Cosmologic Evolution Model Supporting Likelihood of a God's Existence

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Thank you dogpet and KA,
I have reflected a bit on your statement that cowards may be more fitter.
At first I scoffed at this, but then I pondered .. I respectfully withdraw my scoff and provide you props.
Yes. Of course. An ideal "warrior" or very very "fit" being, would of course have a degree of cowardliness, as it it prompt such being to focus on extreme defenses and avoid fighting where possible to protect itself.
However, I think a being who is lets say a 10/10 for cowardliness, and only a 1/20 for physical might would most probably be "less fit" than a being who is 10/10 for cowardliness and 10/10 for physical might - just in case it gets cornered etc. Do you agree??

Who is more likely to survive a sword fight, the coward in a suit of armour, or the brave warrior wearing only a goatskin? And spare us the Achilles faery tale!

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

WTF???
Last I checked skulking cowards don't stand a great chance on getting laid!
Ha Ha - dogpet your thinking is totally fucked, your response is too stoopid to even bother with Ha Ha.

Your God only got laid ONCE, Oh wait, you said that was via sperm by "Beam me up Scotty!
So do tell us how evolution by a single reproduction creates an all powerful being? Do tell us your new and revised theory of evolution!

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

Who is more likely to survive a sword fight, the coward in a suit of armour, or the brave warrior wearing only a goatskin? And spare us the Achilles faery tale!

That's very easy, the coward in the suit of armor - as long as the coward when forced to fight is at least as skilled as the brave warrior!

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

However, I think a being who is lets say a 10/10 for cowardliness, and only a 1/20 for physical might would most probably be "less fit" than a being who is 10/10 for cowardliness and 10/10 for physical might - just in case it gets cornered etc. Do you agree??

We're not playing existence manager, you can forget that!.

Did you know Pokemon cards are now a registered currency?

[Andrew66]

dogpet wrote

We're not playing existence manager, you can forget that!.

Did you know Pokemon cards are now a registered currency?

I guess your missing the point, I'm pointing out that cowardliness, to a degree and in the correct proportion can add to a beings fitness, however cowardliness plusenhanced strength and power, to a degree and in the correct proportion would most certainly add to the beings fitness.

Get it?

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

What I think your saying Davin is that for step 1 in scientific inquiry you need observational data to start things off.

I beg to differ - you can alternatively have solely mechanistic rationale, even without observable data.

With the coronary stent example, it has both - mechanistic rationale and observable data (although the observable data by step 1 did not relate yet to coronary cells - so I could say there was not observable data by step 1 - the evidence with coronary cells came later).

In my evolution for God model it also actually in a way has both - there is mechanistic rationale behind the hypothesis - beings of stronger and stronger power and sustainability (fitness) are driven over time by natural selection (evolution); and for observed data I can point to all the observed data (fossils etc.) which support evolutionary process in general. We would be seen as gods from the point of view of a single celled organism!

But one doesn't necessarily need observable data just to start scientific enquiry. That is your foe paw.

Example - The Caveman wants to make a cart to push heavy things.
The caveman imagines that wheels would be helpful, because they have smooth edges so can glide and rotate on the ground (mechanistic rationale). There were never any wheels to observe yet so no observational data to drive their hypothesis. The build a cart with wheels and it works.

My goodness, it's seldom that we are honoured by the prescence of a highly talented individual, one who is not only a theoretical Cosmologist (the "explain the Cosmos" type, NOT the Avon cosmetics saleslady!) but is also an Evolutionist AND a Cardiovascular surgeon!
The RARE combination of such talents does beg the question - if evolution inevitably leads to men becoming God, howcum humans haven't evolved with built-in stents?
Surely this dilemna needs to be adressed before moving on to the inevitable evolution of Russel's teapot? Or has this already happened in an alternate Universe?

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

My goodness, it's seldom that we are honoured by the prescence of a highly talented individual, one who is not only a theoretical Cosmologist (the "explain the Cosmos" type, NOT the Avon cosmetics saleslady!) but is also an Evolutionist AND a Cardiovascular surgeon!
The RARE combination of such talents does beg the question - if evolution inevitably leads to men becoming God, howcum humans haven't evolved with built-in stents?
Surely this dilemna needs to be adressed before moving on to the inevitable evolution of Russel's teapot? Or has this already happened in an alternate Universe?

Thank you for the wonderful compliments. The fact you can utter them , even though likely in jest, shows that you at least are able to intellectualize in a nonpartison way - unlike a certain other individual on this website.!

Humans haven't evolved built in stents (yet) but many have evolved built in bypass grafts (they are called collaterals!!).

[ghoulslime]

Sinfidel wrote

My goodness, it's seldom that we are honoured by the prescence of a highly talented individual, one who is not only a theoretical Cosmologist (the "explain the Cosmos" type, NOT the Avon cosmetics saleslady!) but is also an Evolutionist AND a Cardiovascular surgeon!
The RARE combination of such talents does beg the question - if evolution inevitably leads to men becoming God, howcum humans haven't evolved with built-in stents?
Surely this dilemna needs to be adressed before moving on to the inevitable evolution of Russel's teapot? Or has this already happened in an alternate Universe?

W...what? I thought this was a makeup thread.

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Thank you for the wonderful compliments. The fact you can utter them , even though likely in jest, shows that you at least are able to intellectualize in a nonpartison way - unlike a certain other individual on this website.!

Humans haven't evolved built in stents (yet) but many have evolved built in bypass grafts (they are called collaterals!!).

So which Clinic/Hospital did you say you practised in?

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

That's very easy, the coward in the suit of armor - as long as the coward when forced to fight is at least as skilled as the brave warrior!

You usual BS. The skill level of the guy with a bow and arrow against the guy sitting in a Sherman Tank is irrelevant, like your "hypothesis".

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Humans haven't evolved built in stents (yet) but many have evolved built in bypass grafts (they are called collaterals!!).

Evidence?

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

By the way, just thought of something,

Just as a mathematician some times notices how they can simply an equation, the model can also be so simplified as follows.

1) Science predicts a history of infinite number of alternative cosmological states preceding our universe. Some of these alternative cosmological states may have given rise to our universe, and / or continue to manifest in universes concurrent with our universe.
2) Intelligent life exists in our universe.
3) Principle of modesty suggests that intelligent life forms should exist in at least a tiny minority of these alternative cosmological states.
4) Principle of modesty further suggests that we humans are not likely the smartest, most powerful, or capable.

You must take us for fools in your attempt at putting over your plagiarism of the work of renowned scholar L. Ron Hubbard, who gave us TRUE science (Dianetics), unlike your "it might possibly happen".
He provides FACTS - Xenu, and the planet he originated from, not some imaginary "alternate universe".

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Another example where observational data doesn't always drive hypothesis rendering - physicists when they come up with a new equation on a black board. Do you think Einstein actually observed E=mc2? No, he came up with the equation because it mechanistically and theoretically made sense to him, then he sought out observational data (afterwards!) to prove the hypothesis.

Nah. He plagiarized it from a guy named Lorentz Transformation.

[Davin]

Hey Andrew66, do you really think that evolution always leads to stronger, more powerful species?

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

Hey Andrew66, do you really think that evolution always leads to stronger, more powerful species?

No, evolution simply leads to a fitter species.

It is possible that a species can become more fit by developing defensive measures (cunning, ability to hide etc.) rather than offensive measures.
However evolution will also of course provide stronger and more powerful, and the fittest of the fittest would most likely have all atributes (power, strength, cunning, fear) at the highest levels.

But you know this... and if you followed my posts and discussion you know I know this..