If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[Frannie]

Actually darwinism claims that the only source of change is random mutations over time. Epigenics erases that concept entirely

Your claim to what "Darwinism" claims is completely false.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.


So tell us, why is it that sharks, for one example, have not gotten "more complex"?

Ever hear the term "fitness for survival"?

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

.

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

they were not replaced, evolution occurs fist over time as a metaphysical phenomena and is employed as a single instance when complete from parent to offspring where the offspring as a new example can self replicate.

Theory not fact.

It’s not even a good theory. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes it unless energy keeps being added to the system.

Then why are you championing a theory one moment then mocking it the next

Because that is the nature of schizophrenia

 

[ding]

You would need an entirely new physics in order for matter to be created.

False. Our physics doesn't break down until further into the past. That's how we know this early period before the decoupling existed.

The physics doesn’t break down. The math does. It yields infinities which seems appropriate to me.

 

[BreezeWood]

It does not invalidate Darwinism. That is a shameless, stupid lie. The presence of epigenetic mechanisms would not render natural selection invalid or nonexistent.

Haha, what a stupid attempt. And, trust me son, you arent walking anyone through anything except getting Fs on high school science quizzes.

Actually darwinism claims that the only source of change is random mutations over time. Epigenics erases that concept entirely

Your claim to what "Darwinism" claims is completely false.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.


So tell us, why is it that sharks, for one example, have not gotten "more complex"?

Ever hear the term "fitness for survival"?

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

.

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

they were not replaced, evolution occurs fist over time as a metaphysical phenomena and is employed as a single instance when complete from parent to offspring where the offspring as a new example can self replicate.

Theory not fact.

.

Theory not fact.

the fact is observable evolution -

the metaphysical is proven by the cicada that transforms themselves from one being into another ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The physics doesn’t break down. The math does. It

Sorry ding, same thing. And no,i am not going to engage you on this weak, stupid semantic nonsense.

 

[ding]

Your claim to what "Darwinism" claims is completely false.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.


So tell us, why is it that sharks, for one example, have not gotten "more complex"?

Ever hear the term "fitness for survival"?

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

.

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

they were not replaced, evolution occurs fist over time as a metaphysical phenomena and is employed as a single instance when complete from parent to offspring where the offspring as a new example can self replicate.

Theory not fact.

It’s not even a good theory. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes it unless energy keeps being added to the system.

Then why are you championing a theory one moment then mocking it the next

Because that is the nature of schizophrenia

The error is yours. I have been very consistent. Inflation theory tells us that space and time were created from nothing and that the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.

 

[Frannie]

You would need an entirely new physics in order for matter to be created.

False. Our physics doesn't break down until further into the past. That's how we know this early period before the decoupling existed.

The physics doesn’t break down. The math does. It yields infinities which seems appropriate to me.

Physics does not allow for the creation of matter

 

[ding]

The physics doesn’t break down. The math does. It

Sorry ding, same thing. And no,i am not going to engage you on this weak, stupid semantic nonsense.

It actually isn’t the same thing at all.

 

[ding]

Physics breaking down implies there is no physics. The math breaking down implies we have reached a limit of math.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The physics doesn’t break down. The math does. It

Sorry ding, same thing. And no,i am not going to engage you on this weak, stupid semantic nonsense.

It actually isn’t the same thing at all.

In this case, it absolutely is. And that is why we are searching for new physics. Well, not you. The scientifoc community.

 

[ding]

You would need an entirely new physics in order for matter to be created.

False. Our physics doesn't break down until further into the past. That's how we know this early period before the decoupling existed.

The physics doesn’t break down. The math does. It yields infinities which seems appropriate to me.

Physics does not allow for the creation of matter

Yes. It does. The net energy of the universe is zero because the positive energy of the matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity which is created by the matter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Physics breaking down implies there is no physics.

But "our known physics" breaking down does not mean that.

There, now everyone can put aside this latest self serving dithering by you.

 

[BreezeWood]

You mean, conservation of energy. That was a very silly, elementary error you just made.

Moron alert.

Mass is never created nor destroyed, it merely changes form or converts to energy or reverses such effect



Are you in 6th grade or what because I knew more than you in the 3rd grade

.

Mass is never created nor destroyed, it merely changes form or converts to energy or reverses such effect

so BB is a cyclical event where singularity is the moment from pure energy transforming back to mass ...

Not possible. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. There is no such thing as perpetual energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes it.

.

Not possible. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. There is no such thing as perpetual energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes it.

the trajectory of the expelled matter returns to the point of singularity without changing direction causing the impetuous for compaction back to energy. a cyclical event

the Boomerang Theory.

That is not what is observed in a speeding up in acceleration expanding universe......

.

That is not what is observed in a speeding up in acceleration expanding universe......

that is not relevant to the fact the trajectory of the new matter is a finite angle that will return all matter from singularity at the same time as a mirror image back to its origin of when it was expelled.

 

[ding]

The physics doesn’t break down. The math does. It

Sorry ding, same thing. And no,i am not going to engage you on this weak, stupid semantic nonsense.

It actually isn’t the same thing at all.

In this case, it absolutely is. And that is why we are searching for new physics. Well, not you. The scientifoc community.

Inflation doesn’t need new physics.

 

[ding]

Physics breaking down implies there is no physics.

But "our known physics" breaking down does not mean that.

There, now everyone can put aside this latest self serving dithering by you.

Probably because the physics don’t break down. The math yields infinities. That is the correct way of describing Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Probably because the physics don’t break down. The math yields infinities.

Which is our known physics breaking down.

 

[ding]

The physics doesn’t break down. The math does. It

Sorry ding, same thing. And no,i am not going to engage you on this weak, stupid semantic nonsense.

It actually isn’t the same thing at all.

In this case, it absolutely is. And that is why we are searching for new physics. Well, not you. The scientifoc community.

Inflation doesn’t need new physics.

I didnt say it did. Thank you ding, for the worthless contribution. Go pester someone else. Frannie seems to enjoy it.

You certainly implied it by saying physics breaks down and they are looking for new physics.

 

[ding]

Probably because the physics don’t break down. The math yields infinities.

Which is our known physics breaking down.

Wrong. Inflation theory transitions to Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations.

 

[Hollie]

The interesting thing with this experiment is that it is observed multiple times and verified, then shelved because it invalidates darwinism.

It does not invalidate Darwinism. That is a shameless, stupid lie. The presence of epigenetic mechanisms would not render natural selection invalid or nonexistent.

Haha, what a stupid attempt. And, trust me son, you arent walking anyone through anything except getting Fs on high school science quizzes.

Actually darwinism claims that the only source of change is random mutations over time. Epigenics erases that concept entirely

Your claim to what "Darwinism" claims is completely false.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.


So tell us, why is it that sharks, for one example, have not gotten "more complex"?

Ever hear the term "fitness for survival"?

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

Monkeys were not replaced by humans. Both exist. Did you miss that?

 

[Taz]

Darwinism claims that humans are evolved great apes. So why are there apes then?

Because evolution occurs within populations. Two populations of a species are isolated, and evolution produces different results on them. This is 7th grade material,my man.

Nope. Because the aliens only chose a couple of species of apes to endow with better genes. Homo Sapiens are the only surviving ones.

What created the aliens?

So you're agreeing that the bible is wrong and our god is aliens?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Probably because the physics don’t break down. The math yields infinities.

Which is our known physics breaking down.

Wrong. Inflation theory transitions to Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations.

Neato!

Meanwhile, much of the global scoentofoc community works on a solution to inflation and early states of the universe, with all them convinced that new physics will arise. Unless the conventional idea of these early states is completely replaced with cyclical and multiverse theories, in which case...new physics arise. .

But i will be sure to pass along your memo of discoveries from the year 1980 to all of them.