Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children

[Wildswanderer]

don't think you can argue any further backwards than that, but it will be interesting to see you try.

There's no bang without the energy to produce one. Where did the energy come from?

 

[Bear Wild]

Because the most logical explanation for design is an intelligent designer.

Planet Earth possesses all the key elements which make it possible for life to survive on the planet:

• 
  Fred Hoyle (a well-respected English astronomer
  a who was primarily known for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis:
  
  
  “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics
  and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

No that is the most illogical argument. You would first have to show there was a designer and explain were the designer came from - there is no evidence. We see that life changes and adapts without a god and his toolbox coming in to every organism making adjustments. We do see variations of both beneficial and nonbeneficial occurring to the genetic pool. Are you willing to say that your designer makes mistakes??? Is your designer not competent enough to prevent cancers, maladaptation, deformities, designs that go extinct. Your designer would be no better than a purely natural process and we have evidence for the purely natural and absolutely none for the designer.

As for the right planet, why would a designer design so many uninhabitable planets if that designer was any good. With all of the planets that formed in our universe there is no reason to believe that some would be at the correct position for life without the need of a god personally positioning the planet then giving it just the right spin.

 

[McBell]

You would first have to show there was a designer and explain were the designer came from...

I disagree.
The first thing they need to do is show it is designed.
It matters not what.
A car, computer, tree, earth, universe.
Merely jumping up and down all excited and declaring them "designed" does not mean they were designed.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

This is how "new information" is added to a genome:

@Wildswanderer -- You skipped this one?

Then you should be able to replicate it easily.

Easily!?

Unlike religion where "answers" come in the form of "divine revelation", answers in science don't come that easy.

Abiogenesis: Definition, Theory, Evidence & Examples

Ohhhh, I get it. So if science doesn't have all the answers shrink-wrapped and prepackaged, then science is wrong; and you win by default.

There's no bang without the energy to produce one. Where did the energy come from?

First, there wasn't a "bang". You understand that; right? That it wasn't a "bang" but instead a rapid expansion of spacetime?

Second, I already gave an explanation; remove all matter and energy from an area of space and what is left is a vacuum; which means, vacuum energy. You skipped the very explanation that I have already provided and asked me the same question.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

@Wildswanderer -- Here is the text you ignored.

Physicists don't claim "nothing"; they claim "nothing ... as we understand nothing". Even then, if you take a bubble and you remove all matter and energy from that bubble, what remains is a vacuum; and that vacuum is rampant with "vacuum energy" which is "something".

So a more precise definition of what we know or believe to be true prior to the big bang is "Lack of anything, as we understand anything to be".

 

[Wildswanderer]

Second, I already gave an explanation; remove all matter and energy from an area of space and what is left is a vacuum; which means, vacuum energy.

That's not an explanation.
You are grasping. You are accepting something came from nothing.
That's not possible in science. Have you observed it happening? Science has to be observed or it didn't happen.
It's not even accepted universally amongst scientists.
Skeptics have been questioning the validity of the Big Bang model for as long as there has been a Big Bang model.
Besides, the Big Bang is a description of how we think the universe may have began, not an explanation of why it began.
It does not assume anything about what (or who) made the universe, and it does not assume anything about what (if anything) came before.
You can not have an expansion with nothing to expand.
What was this dense energy that expanded?
The Big Bang is not a theory of the origins of the universe.
In fact, we have no scientific theory of the origins of the universe.
The big bang is just the theory, based on observation, that our universe was smaller and hotter and denser, and in the future, it will be larger and colder and less dense.
It's not meant to explain why something exists instead of nothing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course it's random. According to you, doe someone pick what mutation happens? You can say that the best mutation survives, but it still happened by total chance and even a beneficial mutation is often a loss of information, not a gain. So, even calling it beneficial isn't really correct.

Science/evolution doesn't show that some "one" is picking any mutations. You really are stuck in some kind of designer mind set here and your talking points have clearly been taken from long-ago debunked talking points found on creationist websites.

The environment does the "picking" of which organisms survive, in the sense that those populations of animals that are best adapted to their environment are the ones with the best chance of surviving and passing their genes (with mutations) onto the next generation. The ones who aren't well adapted to their environment tend not to thrive and reproduce. (That is an extremely simplified explanation and I would suggest further reading).

How Does Natural Selection Work? 5 Basic Steps (VISTA) | AMNH
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
Evolution 101: Natural Selection | BEACON

 

[SkepticThinker]

We could not survive here if it were not suited to habitation.
You are nit-picking. Even having oceans is necessary for life on this planet.

Well, like I said, go out and try to live in the middle of the ocean, then get back to me about how habitable it is. Also keep in mind, the earth's oceans cover 71% of the earth's surface. It's not nit picking to point out that 29% of the earth's surface is habitable by human beings to a person who is claiming that the earth is perfectly habitable for human beings.

The ocean produces over half of the world's oxygen and absorbs 50 times more carbon dioxide than our atmosphere.
The ocean provides us with food for billions of people. We could not even breathe if we didn't have oceans. So, yeah, it's kind of important for human habitation.

Human beings need fresh water to survive. And here we are on a planet that's mostly covered in salt water.
Remember you said the word "perfect," not me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because the most logical explanation for design is an intelligent designer.

You keep saying that, but still haven't demonstrated it.

Planet Earth possesses all the key elements which make it possible for life to survive on the planet:

• 
  Fred Hoyle (a well-respected English astronomer
  a who was primarily known for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis:
  
  
  “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics
  and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Quote mining isn't an argument or an explanation for anything.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Science/evolution doesn't show that some "one" is picking any mutations. You really are stuck in some kind of designer mind set here and your talking points have clearly been taken from long-ago debunked talking points found on creationist websites.

The environment does the "picking" of which organisms survive, in the sense that those populations of animals that are best adapted to their environment are the ones with the best chance of surviving and passing their genes (with mutations) onto the next generation. The ones who aren't well adapted to their environment tend not to thrive and reproduce. (That is an extremely simplified explanation and I would suggest further reading).

How Does Natural Selection Work? 5 Basic Steps (VISTA) | AMNH
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
Evolution 101: Natural Selection | BEACON

Just totally ignore what I said and preach your beliefs!

Well, like I said, go out and try to live in the middle of the ocean, then get back to me about how habitable it is.

Nobody said ever inch is perfect to live on. But it's all necessary so that we can live here.
The ocean provides food for people on land, which you are just ignoring. And we are capable of building ships and submarines and living on the ocean for long periods of time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just totally ignore what I said and preach your beliefs!

Huh?

I spoke directly to what we were discussing.
Funny you don't have a response.

Also, I'm not preaching beliefs, rather I'm providing you with scientific evidence in order to help you understand.

Nobody said ever inch is perfect to live on. But it's all necessary so that we can live here.

You said,
"The earth is perfect in every way for human habitation."

Have you changed your mind now that you've thought about it?

The ocean provides food for people on land, which you are just ignoring. And we are capable of building ships and submarines and living on the ocean for long periods of time.

I actually did address this, but for some reason you cut out that part of my post.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You said,
"The earth is perfect in every way for human habitation."

Have you changed your mind now that you've thought about it?

Nope. It is perfect. But not ever inch is for living on. Just like you don't sleep on the toilet hopefully, but it still has a purpose.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course it's random. According to you, doe someone pick what mutation happens?

He said: natural selection isn't random.

Natural selection and mutation are not the same thing.

You can say that the best mutation survives, but it still happened by total chance and even a beneficial mutation is often a loss of information, not a gain. So, even calling it beneficial isn't really correct.

You make no sense.
Beneficial in context of selection means "better adapted" to the niche in terms of survival and reproductive succes. Regardless if it is a "loss of information" or otherwise.

Take moles for example. They gradually moved underground. They still have eye balls. But they are hidden away behind a thick layer of skin, which used to be eyelids, which can't be opened. This was beneficial for them, because eyes that can open, can get infected when underground dirt gets into them. And the more time they spend underground, the less need for sight they have. At some point, it's better for them to not have sight at all if that means lower chance of fatal infections of eyeballs they barely use anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not nit picking to point out that 29% of the earth's surface is habitable by human beings to a person who is claiming that the earth is perfectly habitable for human beings.

It's actually quite less then 29%, because a large part of that 29% of "not water surface" is permafrost at the poles, inhospitable mountains, deserts like the Saharah, etc. Quite hostile environments where it would be tremendously hard, and sometimes simply impossible, for settlements to survive - let alone thrive.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You are grasping. You are accepting something came from nothing.

The answer of "What came before the 'big bang' is 'We don't know'".
If we don't know, then we don't juxtapose a "make pretend answer".

The answer to 'What caused the singularity to expand' is 'We don't know'".
If we don't know, then we don't juxtapose a "make pretend answer".

 

[Wildswanderer]

Natural selection and mutation are not the same thing.

Evolutionary biologists often assume that once mutations produce a functionally advantageous trait, it will easily spread (become “fixed”) throughout a population by natural selection.

But In the real world,merely generating a functionally advantageous trait does not guarantee it will persist, or become fixed.
For example, what if by chance the animal to first develop the beneficial mutation breaks a leg, and gets eaten by a predator — never passing on its genes?

Random forces or events can prevent a trait from spreading through a population, even if it provides an advantage.
These random forces are lumped together under the name “genetic drift.”

And they are truly random.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionary biologists often assume that once mutations produce a functionally advantageous trait, it will easily spread (become “fixed”) throughout a population by natural selection.

Quote/cite a paper where an evolutionary biologist does that.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Evolutionary biologists often assume that once mutations produce a functionally advantageous trait, it will easily spread (become “fixed”) throughout a population by natural selection.

Where in the world did you get THAT idea!?

For example, what if by chance the animal to first develop the beneficial mutation breaks a leg, and gets eaten by a predator — never passing on its genes?

Where do you suppose that this has never been taken into account or speculated?
Where are you coming up with the idea that evolutionary biologists claim that a beneficial mutation MUST survive?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

@Wildswanderer -- Why do you continue to argue against something you don't understand?

 

[tas8831]

There's no bang without the energy to produce one. Where did the energy come from?

Wow, so you actually think the 'bang' was an 'explosion'... What is your science background again?