Cosmologic Evolution Model Supporting Likelihood of a God's Existence

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Your the one that's wrong my dear.

I see your point of course, and of course evolution does not work in a linear direction towards a single pathway (I never said it did). Your point is obvious.
But if you don't think a dominant thread of evolution (amidst all the other threads) does not yield ultimately more intelligent, and thereby stronger and more powerful species - who would be by these characteristics be more fit (i.e. better able to survive and reproduce) than others, then you are sorely misguided in your thinking.

You will probably argue that intelligent beings are more apt to kill of one another. But that is short sited, because over time an intelligent species of vast power (and easily able to destroy a jelly fish I might add!) that is peaceful to its kin would ultimately, given enough time and opportunity, evolve.

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

Really if you bother to read my reply I agree, (don't disagree), that evolution works in many simultaneous pathways. There will presently be not only apes but bacteria and one celled organisms also. This is a red hearing which serves to distract the poorly educated an uniformed. The fact that apes exist does not negate that humans exist also fool, or that a thread of evolution leads to more and more intelligent and powerful species.

By the way just because you put "cool" and "rock" emoticons and have clever quotes from famous people to end your statements - that does nothing to add quality to your bull shit statements.

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Mathematics my friend, a God can be predicted by mathematic modeling which can be tested and falsified.

I know - you want links. Maybe if the forum paid me like Davin I'd consider digging them up for you.

Translation: I can't give you any links because its bullshit!

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Really if you bother to read my reply I agree, (don't disagree), that evolution works in many simultaneous pathways.

"Pathways." What an idiot.

Andrew66 wrote

The fact that apes exist does not negate that humans exist[...]

Humans are apes, you dumb shit.

Fuck, you've been talking about evolution for so long know, one would think that you'd spend some time learning about what you're talking about.

[Kinich Ahau]

Pathways made me roll my eyes too. It doesn't matter how many times we point out that evolution doesn't imply or predict a "pathway" towards a super evolved, superior creature. It just does not sink in. His whole argument is based on this false premise. Each post just makes him look even more stupid than the last, I'm actually starting to feel embarrassed for him.

Until he educates himself, actually reads a book and abandons this type of reliotard thinking it is no use even discussing it anymore. Poor, poor Andy Pandy.

[Kinich Ahau]

Pathways made me roll my eyes too. It doesn't matter how many times we point out that evolution doesn't imply or predict a "pathway" towards a super evolved, superior creature. It just does not sink in. His whole argument is based on this false premise. Each post just makes him look even more stupid than the last, I'm actually starting to feel embarrassed for him.

Until he educates himself, actually reads a book and abandons this type of reliotard thinking it is no use even discussing it anymore.

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Really if you bother to read my reply I agree, (don't disagree), that evolution works in many simultaneous pathways. There will presently be not only apes but bacteria and one celled organisms also. This is a red hearing which serves to distract the poorly educated an uniformed. The fact that apes exist does not negate that humans exist also fool, or that a thread of evolution leads to more and more intelligent and powerful species.

By the way just because you put "cool" and "rock" emoticons and have clever quotes from famous people to end your statements - that does nothing to add quality to your bull shit statements.

You should study evolution here - you could learn a lot! -

http://lakecomonaturally.com/

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Think of it this way

With such a vast number of prior cosmologic states - unless our universe is remarkably special - other life forms are expected to have evolved, and given an infinite evolutionary capacity predicted by an infinite regression some pretty powerful beings are expected.

Perhaps, yes GOD - SORRY YOU DON'T LIKE THE CONCLUSION.

If you and JJ would volunteer for this procedure, it could greatly further the cause of evolution!

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/W7cuzug-V9w/hqdefault.jpg\\

[Sinfidel]

Andrew, Your marvellous theory of God evolution fails to address a major issue. The "historical" documents you reference to make frequent mention of angels, so they too must have evolved, yet there has not been a single fossil of one of these unearthed! Why is that?

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Pathways made me roll my eyes too. It doesn't matter how many times we point out that evolution doesn't imply or predict a "pathway" towards a super evolved, superior creature. It just does not sink in. His whole argument is based on this false premise. Each post just makes him look even more stupid than the last, I'm actually starting to feel embarrassed for him.

Until he educates himself, actually reads a book and abandons this type of reliotard thinking it is no use even discussing it anymore. Poor, poor Andy Pandy.

OK, just to show you how stoopid you are.

Lets say hypothetically that a "super evolved superior creature" was discovered. How did it come to be? By evolution right? What other way?

That you think evolution can't lead to superior (more fit, including by intelligence and power etc.) creature only shows how dimwitted you are.

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Pathways made me roll my eyes too. It doesn't matter how many times we point out that evolution doesn't imply or predict a "pathway" towards a super evolved, superior creature. It just does not sink in. His whole argument is based on this false premise. Each post just makes him look even more stupid than the last, I'm actually starting to feel embarrassed for him.

Until he educates himself, actually reads a book and abandons this type of reliotard thinking it is no use even discussing it anymore.

Ok, I'll bite here, and drop my partisan defence.

Please explain to me why you feel that evolution would not predict, eventually over time and after many trials and errors, a pathway towards a super evolved superior creature?? I"m a bit slow, so please help me to understand?

If you convince me I'll concede the argument, and I will really try to listen.

You see, I think you'd agree that humans evolved from one celled organisms, and are not humans by comparison super evolved superior creatures? So we see from past history that this "pathway" that you seem to deny, already as born fruit.

I'm just saying why not continue to extrapolate forward to an even more great and more evolved species??.

But you sound so certain of yourselves, please please fill me in with your superior intellect and explain. ??? Help me understand, I thirst to gain your superior wisdom! I will try hard to undnerstand, please explain using simple terms so I can get it.

[Kinich Ahau]

This might help:

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below, natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.

This is from: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...cherfaq.php#a3

You should probably read the whole section: Misconceptions about Evolution.

I'm sorry but it doesn't have pictures.

[Davin]

I see that Andrew66 is still so eager to make the evidence fit its conclusion than to intelligently look at the evidence and see where the evidence leads. Which is causing it (Andrew66) to commit all sorts of fallacies making it look like an idiot.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

I see that Andrew66 is still so eager to make the evidence fit its conclusion than to intelligently look at the evidence and see where the evidence leads. Which is causing it (Davin) to commit all sorts of fallacies making it look like an idiot.

I see that Davin is still so eager to make the evidence fit its conclusion than to intelligently look at the evidence and see where the evidence leads. Which is causing it (Davin) to commit all sorts of fallacies making it look like an idiot

[Davin]

Aw, so cute! I think it's trying to sound smarter so it's copying me.