Re: Heroic Game Launcher... BRAVO!

On 2024-06-26, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>

On 2024-06-26, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>

On 2024-06-25, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>

On 2024-06-25 07:59, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
 

On 2024-06-24 18:06, chrisv wrote:

Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>

Considering how Darwin's Theory of Evolution is complete excrement which
can be debunked in seven seconds, God is the best explanation for
everything around us. <https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/>

>
That's some kooky shit, there.

 
Indeed, they pretty much have no idea.
 

Feel free to believe the contrary, countless Darwinists have too only to
eventually realize that the theory that has consumed their entire lives
needs constant lies to be supported. We're supposed to believe that life
emerged from nothing even though that is scientifically impossible, and
that a series of mutations, all beneficial, led to us becoming what we
are today. Meanwhile, mutations are almost always negative and/or fatal.
We're also supposed to believe that we evolved from apes even though it
would take several hundred million mutations, all beneficial, for them
to turn into us. This is somehow science even though it is not only
contrary to all scientific laws but logic.

 
  :-D
 
You find it far easier to believe in a universal invisible entity that
has a thing for mankind, than to believe in some natural results of physics and
chemistry. It's not all "mutations", bub.

>
That is the point though: Darwinism _ignores_ physics, chemistry,
genetics and the rest to reach its conclusion.

>
Darwinism, IIRC, doesn't speculate on the cause of changes, only that they do
occur and some yield a higher probability of survival.

>
Unfortunately that's not good science. That's guesswork or speculation. But
atheistic "scientists" (so-called) glommed on to it because it gave them an
alternative to God.
>

But speciation is not just about survival. For example, a population (say,
insects) that gets divided all of a sudden by some natural barrier, will start
to grow ever more different, and ultimately cannot interbreed.

>
That's called adaptation, or "micro-evolution." That's not what
evolutionists mean when they speak of evolution, where (for example) a
land-bound lizard turns into a flying bird. That's called "macro-evolution."
One does not lead into the other. For evolution to make sense we have to
have a lot better explanations for so-called "macro-evolution" then we
currently have.
>
I won't be holding my breath.

>
LMAO at "macro-evolution". You don't even know what it is.

>
Actually I do. But why don't give me your explanation?

>
This one seems reasonable:
>
   Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual.
   Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in
   evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering
   plants.
>
And micro does indeed lead to macro. Quantum leaps in evolution aren't common.

You're quoting one school of supposed "macroevolution." Since this is
believed by faith it's not science (Gould used the *lack* of fossil evidence
to argue for his particular theory) — either way, it's a faith-based
"explanation."

   One question that looms over philosophical work on macroevolutionary
   theory is how macroevolution and microevolution are related. One view,
   which is closely associated with the modern synthesis, is that
   macroevolutionary patterns are fully explicable in terms of
   microevolutionary processes. On this view, macroevolution is “nothing
   but” successive rounds of microevolution (a formulation due to Grantham
   2007). Stephen Jay Gould pejoratively referred to this kind of view as
   “extrapolationism” (Gould 2002). This issue links up with more general
   philosophical questions about the potential reduction of higher-level
   biological phenomena to lower levels (Oppenheimer & Putnam 1958; Fodor
   1974; Kitcher 1984; Sarkar 1992, Rosenberg 1997).

This is from an article on the "Philosophy of Macroevolution." Note the use
of the words "philosophy" and "view," (in other words, belief). These are
terms used in the realm of faith, not science. So here the "modern
synthesis" (a compromise between the belief in punctuated equilibrium vs the
old gradual evolution "orthodoxy") is a compromise between two opposing
positions. The fact that they can compromise on their beliefs means they
don't really know. They "assume" there *is* a compromise because they
believe (by faith) that there is the "fact" of evolution (even though they
can't explain which particular theory is "factual"). It's an attempt to heal
the rift in their religious beliefs opened by Gould (and others) in the
1970s.

Here's a bit more of their philosophy (also from the article's
Introduction).

   Since the 1970s, theorizing about macroevolution has focused on several
   important ideas: punctuated equilibria, species selection, hierarchical
   theory, historical contingency, passive vs. driven evolutionary trends,
   major evolutionary transitions, and more recently the zero-force
   evolutionary law (or ZFEL) defended by McShea and Brandon (2010). One
   philosophical challenge is to understand the relationships among these
   ideas; another is to work out what they might mean for the relationship
   between macro- and microevolution.

   The fossil record is the chief source of empirical evidence concerning
   macroevolutionary patterns, and so macroevolutionary theory is closely
   associated with paleontology. In addition to questions of
   macroevolutionary theory per se, there are also epistemological questions
   about how paleontologists infer pattern from process, and how they
   correct for biases in the fossil data (Bokulich forthcoming). In
   addition, the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution
   sometimes mirrors the distinction between paleontology, with its focus on
   the fossil record, and neontology, with its focus on observable, extant
   populations. For this reason, metaphysical questions about the
   relationship between macro- and microevolution are sometimes difficult to
   disentangle from epistemological questions about what sorts of things can
   be inferred from different evidence bases.

And here we find the term "metaphysical" in reference to supposed "science."
(rbowman might find that interesting.)

If you want to wade through the whole article on macroevolution "philosophy"
you can find it here...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/

Personally I'm not that interested in their arguments for the particular
tenets of their various sects in the wider Evolution Religion.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..."     — St. Augustine