People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[Boss]

It is a complex 16-bit code defining every single aspect of the living organism it belongs to

Careful here, Hoss, this is incorrect. The reason we cannot make life or even a cell from DNA is that the cell also has information. Reproduction is not only the DNA, it is also the other cellular structures and even the information in the matrix itself. All are required, not just DNA.

Wow! So, to counter my argument that life is not simply a fluke of nature and random chance and must be very complex because DNA is very complex... you add that DNA isn't the only complexity, it's actually MORE complex! I think you just moved the goal posts to my advantage! I've never seen anyone do that before! Amazing!

The fact that life is complex causes the magic argument to fail.

If God's magic was creation, then life would have current magical properties and be simple. Where is the magic?

Glad to know you admit your magic argument is a failure.

 

[BreezeWood]

It is a complex 16-bit code defining every single aspect of the living organism it belongs to

Careful here, Hoss, this is incorrect. The reason we cannot make life or even a cell from DNA is that the cell also has information. Reproduction is not only the DNA, it is also the other cellular structures and even the information in the matrix itself. All are required, not just DNA.

Wow! So, to counter my argument that life is not simply a fluke of nature and random chance and must be very complex because DNA is very complex... you add that DNA isn't the only complexity, it's actually MORE complex! I think you just moved the goal posts to my advantage! I've never seen anyone do that before! Amazing!

The fact that life is complex causes the magic argument to fail.

If God's magic was creation, then life would have current magical properties and be simple. Where is the magic?

.

The fact that life is complex causes the magic argument to fail

physiology reflects the complexity of the metaphysical, not to mention the functionality the physiology represents as an organism and does not negate the magic their combination does represent. the magic of reproduction from nothing.

physiology is the physical representation of the metaphysical there is no physiology without life that does not perish.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is fundamentally loaded and based on fallacy from the start. For one, the "odds" (nonsensical term in this context, but I will use it anyway) are excellent that selection, given enough time and iterations, would produce complicated chemicals that persist and even self-replicate.

"Selected" by WHAT?

By physical laws and environmental pressures, of course. Just as stable molecules like water are "selected for". Just as certain molecular rock structures are "selected for". Just as spheroid objects in space are "selected for".

Ahh.. So a molecule of oxygen decides it wants to select two hydrogen molecules to bond with and form water? Rocks decide to select their formation? Perhaps there is actual PURPOSE in my continuous arguing with rock heads like you on the Internet?

No, physical laws select for those molecules and structures. It is clear that you do not understand selection. Do not ask me to explain it again. Go look it up yourself and educate yourself. It's embarrassing for to even enter into a discussion of this topic with such an abject ignorance of its fundamental principles

 

[BreezeWood]

From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve?

Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

Boss is desperate. The evolution of multicellularity is one of the great evidences of evolution due to all the independent times it has occurred.

Scientists DON'T agree. That's what you fuckwits claim whenever you can't support your conclusions. Yes, multi-cellular life is explicitly defined as cells working, communicating, cooperating and functioning TOGETHER, that's precisely what makes an organism "multi-cellular" in nature. And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

.

Scientists DON'T agree. That's what you fuckwits claim whenever you can't support your conclusions. Yes, multi-cellular life is explicitly defined as cells working, communicating, cooperating and functioning TOGETHER, that's precisely what makes an organism "multi-cellular" in nature. And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment ...


there is no need to, the subdivision of the singlecell organism is a natural step in the progression of complexity that is self explanatory and observable and without controversy as demonstrated by the diagram for early development.

the outer ring is the initial cell, multicellular organisms are never more than the initial cell that subdivides to produce the multifunctioning components of the organism. the DNA for all the cells remains the same as the original that is maintained by the subdivision. essentially all organisms on earth are singlecell or hybrid singlecell organisms.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It is a complex 16-bit code defining every single aspect of the living organism it belongs to

Careful here, Hoss, this is incorrect. The reason we cannot make life or even a cell from DNA is that the cell also has information. Reproduction is not only the DNA, it is also the other cellular structures and even the information in the matrix itself. All are required, not just DNA.

Wow! So, to counter my argument that life is not simply a fluke of nature and random chance and must be very complex because DNA is very complex... you add that DNA isn't the only complexity, it's actually MORE complex! I think you just moved the goal posts to my advantage! I've never seen anyone do that before! Amazing!

The fact that life is complex causes the magic argument to fail.

If God's magic was creation, then life would have current magical properties and be simple. Where is the magic?

Why should a complex molecule form in a system that tends to be entropic?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Uncensored2008]

Clearly something is wrong with your brain, if you actually believe that the world's scientists are all lying about AGW. That, of course, explains why you know-nothing deniers are all squawking on internet forums, instead of publishing science. You are not presenting a challenge to a robust theory by throwing your little hissy fit. You are just embarrassing yourself.

So, from your perspective as an uneducated and ignorant dolt, those who fail to follow the moronic religion that you promote are not only heretics, but indeed mentally ill? Precisely the way Stalin dealt with those who dare challenge Lysenko. You Stalinists never change in your methods.

Here is a hint Comrade, real science is not based on consensus to dogma, the way your religion is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The dogma that is leading you to irrationally deny scientific theories, of course. your dogma is the incorrect "alternative explanation". yes, it arises from your magical beliefs. No, I won't believe you if you say otherwise. Sorry.

Precisely the argument I use in regard to the AGW cult that you worship, Comrade.

So what? Who gives a shit of some freak on the internet says water isn't wet? Your cackling has no bearing on anything, save for embarrassing this country by being part of its unique contingent of trailer park scientists who think global warming is a vast conspiracy.

Calm down Comrade. That real scientists are disputing your consensus that the sun rotates the earth was bound to happen. Yours' s a cult of ignorance.

Oh BTW, I am published.

 

[Boss]

From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve?

Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

Boss is desperate. The evolution of multicellularity is one of the great evidences of evolution due to all the independent times it has occurred.

Scientists DON'T agree. That's what you fuckwits claim whenever you can't support your conclusions. Yes, multi-cellular life is explicitly defined as cells working, communicating, cooperating and functioning TOGETHER, that's precisely what makes an organism "multi-cellular" in nature. And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

.

Scientists DON'T agree. That's what you fuckwits claim whenever you can't support your conclusions. Yes, multi-cellular life is explicitly defined as cells working, communicating, cooperating and functioning TOGETHER, that's precisely what makes an organism "multi-cellular" in nature. And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment ...


there is no need to, the subdivision of the singlecell organism is a natural step in the progression of complexity that is self explanatory and observable and without controversy as demonstrated by the diagram for early development.

View attachment 153854

the outer ring is the initial cell, multicellular organisms are never more than the initial cell that subdivides to produce the multifunctioning components of the organism. the DNA for all the cells remains the same as the original that is maintained by the subdivision. essentially all organisms on earth are singlecell or hybrid singlecell organisms.

Complete ignorance of biology.

 

[Boss]

This is fundamentally loaded and based on fallacy from the start. For one, the "odds" (nonsensical term in this context, but I will use it anyway) are excellent that selection, given enough time and iterations, would produce complicated chemicals that persist and even self-replicate.

"Selected" by WHAT?

By physical laws and environmental pressures, of course. Just as stable molecules like water are "selected for". Just as certain molecular rock structures are "selected for". Just as spheroid objects in space are "selected for".

Ahh.. So a molecule of oxygen decides it wants to select two hydrogen molecules to bond with and form water? Rocks decide to select their formation? Perhaps there is actual PURPOSE in my continuous arguing with rock heads like you on the Internet?

No, physical laws select for those molecules and structures. It is clear that you do not understand selection. Do not ask me to explain it again. Go look it up yourself and educate yourself. It's embarrassing for to even enter into a discussion of this topic with such an abject ignorance of its fundamental principles

Okay, so you've answered my question. Nature (physical laws) selects. Now, the next question to ask is WHY? What causes physical nature to make the selections it makes? I'm clear on HOW things work, I am interested in discovering WHY.

 

[BreezeWood]

From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve?

Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

Boss is desperate. The evolution of multicellularity is one of the great evidences of evolution due to all the independent times it has occurred.

Scientists DON'T agree. That's what you fuckwits claim whenever you can't support your conclusions. Yes, multi-cellular life is explicitly defined as cells working, communicating, cooperating and functioning TOGETHER, that's precisely what makes an organism "multi-cellular" in nature. And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

.

Scientists DON'T agree. That's what you fuckwits claim whenever you can't support your conclusions. Yes, multi-cellular life is explicitly defined as cells working, communicating, cooperating and functioning TOGETHER, that's precisely what makes an organism "multi-cellular" in nature. And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment ...


there is no need to, the subdivision of the singlecell organism is a natural step in the progression of complexity that is self explanatory and observable and without controversy as demonstrated by the diagram for early development.

View attachment 153854

the outer ring is the initial cell, multicellular organisms are never more than the initial cell that subdivides to produce the multifunctioning components of the organism. the DNA for all the cells remains the same as the original that is maintained by the subdivision. essentially all organisms on earth are singlecell or hybrid singlecell organisms.

Complete ignorance of biology.

.

Complete ignorance of biology.

And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

the diagram or its explanation either way you have no more to offer and have not done so as your initial claim of a leap from single cell to multicellular organisms is unaccountable is wholly without merit - and is provided by observable, physical science.



* you also did not realize M Duffys post for muticellular organisms was referring to colony's -

Colonial organisms are clonal colonies composed of many physically connected, interdependent individuals.

the above is what you were actually referring to in your post ... .

 

[Boss]

From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve?

Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

Boss is desperate. The evolution of multicellularity is one of the great evidences of evolution due to all the independent times it has occurred.

Scientists DON'T agree. That's what you fuckwits claim whenever you can't support your conclusions. Yes, multi-cellular life is explicitly defined as cells working, communicating, cooperating and functioning TOGETHER, that's precisely what makes an organism "multi-cellular" in nature. And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

.

Scientists DON'T agree. That's what you fuckwits claim whenever you can't support your conclusions. Yes, multi-cellular life is explicitly defined as cells working, communicating, cooperating and functioning TOGETHER, that's precisely what makes an organism "multi-cellular" in nature. And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment ...


there is no need to, the subdivision of the singlecell organism is a natural step in the progression of complexity that is self explanatory and observable and without controversy as demonstrated by the diagram for early development.

View attachment 153854

the outer ring is the initial cell, multicellular organisms are never more than the initial cell that subdivides to produce the multifunctioning components of the organism. the DNA for all the cells remains the same as the original that is maintained by the subdivision. essentially all organisms on earth are singlecell or hybrid singlecell organisms.

Complete ignorance of biology.

.

Complete ignorance of biology.

And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

the diagram or its explanation either way you have no more to offer and have not done so as your initial claim of a leap from single cell to multicellular organisms is unaccountable is wholly without merit - and is provided by observable, physical science.



* you also did not realize M Duffys post for muticellular organisms was referring to colony's -

Colonial organisms are clonal colonies composed of many physically connected, interdependent individuals.

the above is what you were actually referring to in your post ... .

Your diagram is showing growth of a multi-cellular organism. It's not a single-cell organism becoming a multi-cellular organism and to assert that is the case is ignorant of biology and how organisms are defined. You would literally fail a standard 7th grade biology exam espousing the nonsense you are spewing forth here.

And look, I get it... maybe biology wasn't your strong suit? I know, in the 7th grade, many of my classmates struggled with prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms and how they differ from multi-cellular organisms. It's confusing because there are indeed some organisms which seem to display characteristics of both, but they are limited and confined to a specific type of organism which are unicellular but rely on colonization to function as multi-cellular. They are not true multi-cellular life forms in the biological sense.

I respect that you've put forth so much effort in establishing your philosophy but philosophy doesn't trump biology.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Clearly something is wrong with your brain, if you actually believe that the world's scientists are all lying about AGW. That, of course, explains why you know-nothing deniers are all squawking on internet forums, instead of publishing science. You are not presenting a challenge to a robust theory by throwing your little hissy fit. You are just embarrassing yourself.

So, from your perspective as an uneducated and ignorant dolt, those who fail to follow the moronic religion that you promote are not only heretics, but indeed mentally ill? Precisely the way Stalin dealt with those who dare challenge Lysenko. You Stalinists never change in your methods.

Here is a hint Comrade, real science is not based on consensus to dogma, the way your religion is.

"but indeed mentally ill? "

Not most of you, no. Mostly you are just embarrassing little liars who pick and choose which science to shit on based only on your pathetic superstitions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is fundamentally loaded and based on fallacy from the start. For one, the "odds" (nonsensical term in this context, but I will use it anyway) are excellent that selection, given enough time and iterations, would produce complicated chemicals that persist and even self-replicate.

"Selected" by WHAT?

By physical laws and environmental pressures, of course. Just as stable molecules like water are "selected for". Just as certain molecular rock structures are "selected for". Just as spheroid objects in space are "selected for".

Ahh.. So a molecule of oxygen decides it wants to select two hydrogen molecules to bond with and form water? Rocks decide to select their formation? Perhaps there is actual PURPOSE in my continuous arguing with rock heads like you on the Internet?

No, physical laws select for those molecules and structures. It is clear that you do not understand selection. Do not ask me to explain it again. Go look it up yourself and educate yourself. It's embarrassing for to even enter into a discussion of this topic with such an abject ignorance of its fundamental principles

Okay, so you've answered my question. Nature (physical laws) selects. Now, the next question to ask is WHY? What causes physical nature to make the selections it makes? I'm clear on HOW things work, I am interested in discovering WHY.

". Now, the next question to ask is WHY?"

Which is to ask, "why are the laws of physics what they are in our universe?" I have no idea.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The dogma that is leading you to irrationally deny scientific theories, of course. your dogma is the incorrect "alternative explanation". yes, it arises from your magical beliefs. No, I won't believe you if you say otherwise. Sorry.

Precisely the argument I use in regard to the AGW cult that you worship, Comrade.

So what? Who gives a shit of some freak on the internet says water isn't wet? Your cackling has no bearing on anything, save for embarrassing this country by being part of its unique contingent of trailer park scientists who think global warming is a vast conspiracy.

Calm down Comrade. That real scientists are disputing your consensus that the sun rotates the earth was bound to happen. Yours' s a cult of ignorance.

Oh BTW, I am published.

"That real scientists are disputing your consensus that the sun rotates the earth was bound to happen."

What is this retarded nonsense?

 

[BreezeWood]

From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve?

Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

Boss is desperate. The evolution of multicellularity is one of the great evidences of evolution due to all the independent times it has occurred.

Scientists DON'T agree. That's what you fuckwits claim whenever you can't support your conclusions. Yes, multi-cellular life is explicitly defined as cells working, communicating, cooperating and functioning TOGETHER, that's precisely what makes an organism "multi-cellular" in nature. And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

.

Scientists DON'T agree. That's what you fuckwits claim whenever you can't support your conclusions. Yes, multi-cellular life is explicitly defined as cells working, communicating, cooperating and functioning TOGETHER, that's precisely what makes an organism "multi-cellular" in nature. And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment ...


there is no need to, the subdivision of the singlecell organism is a natural step in the progression of complexity that is self explanatory and observable and without controversy as demonstrated by the diagram for early development.

View attachment 153854

the outer ring is the initial cell, multicellular organisms are never more than the initial cell that subdivides to produce the multifunctioning components of the organism. the DNA for all the cells remains the same as the original that is maintained by the subdivision. essentially all organisms on earth are singlecell or hybrid singlecell organisms.

Complete ignorance of biology.

.

Complete ignorance of biology.

And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!

the diagram or its explanation either way you have no more to offer and have not done so as your initial claim of a leap from single cell to multicellular organisms is unaccountable is wholly without merit - and is provided by observable, physical science.



* you also did not realize M Duffys post for muticellular organisms was referring to colony's -

Colonial organisms are clonal colonies composed of many physically connected, interdependent individuals.

the above is what you were actually referring to in your post ... .

Your diagram is showing growth of a multi-cellular organism. It's not a single-cell organism becoming a multi-cellular organism and to assert that is the case is ignorant of biology and how organisms are defined. You would literally fail a standard 7th grade biology exam espousing the nonsense you are spewing forth here.

And look, I get it... maybe biology wasn't your strong suit? I know, in the 7th grade, many of my classmates struggled with prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms and how they differ from multi-cellular organisms. It's confusing because there are indeed some organisms which seem to display characteristics of both, but they are limited and confined to a specific type of organism which are unicellular but rely on colonization to function as multi-cellular. They are not true multi-cellular life forms in the biological sense.

I respect that you've put forth so much effort in establishing your philosophy but philosophy doesn't trump biology.

.

Your diagram is showing growth of a multi-cellular organism. It's not a single-cell organism becoming a multi-cellular organism and to assert that is the case is ignorant of biology and how organisms are defined.

It's not a single-cell organism becoming a multi-cellular organism ...


the growth for the multicellular organism is a subdivision of one single cell, all organisms on planet Earth have only one core cell no matter whatever other configuration may be involved. the single cell simply becomes more advanced, becoming something else is only semantic.

the manifestation by the metaphysical involved for the advent multicellular organism is an enormous advance in evolution, clearly demonstrative to the evolutionary timeline that gives pause for if there was not a corresponding development of the metaphysical to bring about the physical change and how they interact. the metaphysical as the lead component must / may itself evolve.

 

[Boss]

"Selected" by WHAT?

By physical laws and environmental pressures, of course. Just as stable molecules like water are "selected for". Just as certain molecular rock structures are "selected for". Just as spheroid objects in space are "selected for".

Ahh.. So a molecule of oxygen decides it wants to select two hydrogen molecules to bond with and form water? Rocks decide to select their formation? Perhaps there is actual PURPOSE in my continuous arguing with rock heads like you on the Internet?

No, physical laws select for those molecules and structures. It is clear that you do not understand selection. Do not ask me to explain it again. Go look it up yourself and educate yourself. It's embarrassing for to even enter into a discussion of this topic with such an abject ignorance of its fundamental principles

Okay, so you've answered my question. Nature (physical laws) selects. Now, the next question to ask is WHY? What causes physical nature to make the selections it makes? I'm clear on HOW things work, I am interested in discovering WHY.

". Now, the next question to ask is WHY?"

Which is to ask, "why are the laws of physics what they are in our universe?" I have no idea.

Exactly! You have NO idea! That's the crux of the matter here. You want to run around pretending like you have an idea... indeed, you think you have the only unassailable idea and no one dare challenge it. But here I am challenging it and so do many others. No one knows why physical nature works as it does but it appears to be very precise and finely tuned to work predictably and reliably. As I stated before, there are two distinct possibilities... Just Because™ and God Did It™. I happen to believe there is a reason and you believe there is no reason. Both of us have faith in what we believe.

I don't know what your faith is based on. I've never been able to accept that randomness and chance produced a universe with such beautiful precision, structure and functionality of physics. I find it even harder to believe it all created itself when that simply defies everything we understand as logic. Then, to contemplate it created itself from absolute nothingness as well? It just seems more fathomable to me that something else is at work here. We may not understand what that is... maybe it's not Spiritual Nature? But if not, it's got to be something even more profound and enigmatic.

 

[Boss]

the growth for the multicellular organism is a subdivision of one single cell, all organisms on planet Earth have only one core cell no matter whatever other configuration may be involved. the single cell simply becomes more advanced, becoming something else is only semantic.

the manifestation by the metaphysical involved for the advent multicellular organism is an enormous advance in evolution, clearly demonstrative to the evolutionary timeline that gives pause for if there was not a corresponding development of the metaphysical to bring about the physical change and how they interact. the metaphysical as the lead component must / may itself evolve

No, it's just not. You're absolutely wrong on this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By physical laws and environmental pressures, of course. Just as stable molecules like water are "selected for". Just as certain molecular rock structures are "selected for". Just as spheroid objects in space are "selected for".

Ahh.. So a molecule of oxygen decides it wants to select two hydrogen molecules to bond with and form water? Rocks decide to select their formation? Perhaps there is actual PURPOSE in my continuous arguing with rock heads like you on the Internet?

No, physical laws select for those molecules and structures. It is clear that you do not understand selection. Do not ask me to explain it again. Go look it up yourself and educate yourself. It's embarrassing for to even enter into a discussion of this topic with such an abject ignorance of its fundamental principles

Okay, so you've answered my question. Nature (physical laws) selects. Now, the next question to ask is WHY? What causes physical nature to make the selections it makes? I'm clear on HOW things work, I am interested in discovering WHY.

". Now, the next question to ask is WHY?"

Which is to ask, "why are the laws of physics what they are in our universe?" I have no idea.

Exactly! You have NO idea! That's the crux of the matter here. You want to run around pretending like you have an idea... indeed, you think you have the only unassailable idea and no one dare challenge it. But here I am challenging it and so do many others. No one knows why physical nature works as it does but it appears to be very precise and finely tuned to work predictably and reliably. As I stated before, there are two distinct possibilities... Just Because™ and God Did It™. I happen to believe there is a reason and you believe there is no reason. Both of us have faith in what we believe.

I don't know what your faith is based on. I've never been able to accept that randomness and chance produced a universe with such beautiful precision, structure and functionality of physics. I find it even harder to believe it all created itself when that simply defies everything we understand as logic. Then, to contemplate it created itself from absolute nothingness as well? It just seems more fathomable to me that something else is at work here. We may not understand what that is... maybe it's not Spiritual Nature? But if not, it's got to be something even more profound and enigmatic.

"Exactly! You have NO idea! That's the crux of the matter here. "

Haha, no it isn't. I don't have to know why we have the specific physical laws we have to know how they work. What a ridiculous, last-ditch attempt. And I never ruled out the idea that "God did it". Not one single time. In fact, i explicitly said that I think maybe "God did it".

To characterize the pages upon pages of your absolute, ever-changing bullshit as somehow a campaign to show "Maybe God did it" is as dishonest as it gets. You have wasted everyone's time misunderstanding and misrepresenting basic, fundamental principles of scientific theories, only to change lanes to some new con after your falsehoods were corrected. it's gotta be 30 times now,at least. Nothing about truth or falsity of this simple principle ("God did it") would require you to say the ridiculous things you have said about scientific theories and basic principles, like selection, nor would it require you to engage is this completely failed attempt to undermine accepted scientific theories. I'm not sure who you think you are fooling...

 

[sakinago]

So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. It would appear that the only ignorance here is your inability to believe that you can not sway the masses with your theology of global warming when the untruths of your dogma are uncovered. I'm sure that as you kneel to the great alter of scientific consensus one of these days you'll have a prophesy that might even come true... After all even a clock is right two times a day.

*****CHUCKLE*****

"So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. "

No, you shameless, embarrassing little liar, i said nothing like that. I said gore said that the models now predicted the possibility that the Northern sea ice could melt away completely at some point during the year by 2014. And saying so was accurate on his part, as this was an outlier in the models. Just take a hike, I have no use for your crazy or for your lies.

And knowing what we "know" now...that doesn't seem like a scare tactic to you? How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?

" How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?"

Simple... by gathering more data, given the benefit of time. Just as the part of a model of a hurricane's path over a location in the middle of the model becomes more narrow and accurate, as the hurricane approaches. How can you not puzzle this out for yourself?

A. How much is the current model going to be off as the hurricane approaches closer and closer...is it going to get further and further, it did make a pretty drastic change in only 10 years? And 50 years is the most aggressive model.
B. Predicting Hurricanes are not at all the same as predicting climate change...not even close. With the data we've been compiling and have compiled over the past we'll say even 50 years. If it was similar to predicting a hurricanes path, certainly with 50 years of data we should've had a vastly better idea of the "path" of climate change.
C. A simpler explanation is that it was a scare tactic, which seems to work well in a world with such a short term memory, and a constant imminent "threat" from terror, tragedy, war, and violence.

You sound a lot like an excuse maker, more than someone whose honestly curious. If that wasn't a scare tactic, I don't know what is.

I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.

Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.

you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman

Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.

Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.

Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.

Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. "

No, you shameless, embarrassing little liar, i said nothing like that. I said gore said that the models now predicted the possibility that the Northern sea ice could melt away completely at some point during the year by 2014. And saying so was accurate on his part, as this was an outlier in the models. Just take a hike, I have no use for your crazy or for your lies.

And knowing what we "know" now...that doesn't seem like a scare tactic to you? How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?

" How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?"

Simple... by gathering more data, given the benefit of time. Just as the part of a model of a hurricane's path over a location in the middle of the model becomes more narrow and accurate, as the hurricane approaches. How can you not puzzle this out for yourself?

A. How much is the current model going to be off as the hurricane approaches closer and closer...is it going to get further and further, it did make a pretty drastic change in only 10 years? And 50 years is the most aggressive model.
B. Predicting Hurricanes are not at all the same as predicting climate change...not even close. With the data we've been compiling and have compiled over the past we'll say even 50 years. If it was similar to predicting a hurricanes path, certainly with 50 years of data we should've had a vastly better idea of the "path" of climate change.
C. A simpler explanation is that it was a scare tactic, which seems to work well in a world with such a short term memory, and a constant imminent "threat" from terror, tragedy, war, and violence.

You sound a lot like an excuse maker, more than someone whose honestly curious. If that wasn't a scare tactic, I don't know what is.

I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.

Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.

you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman

Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.

Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.

Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.

Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.

Again -- please pay attention -- I am not going to litigate the truth of accepted scientific theories with internet hacks. Sorry. I am perfectly content in ridiculing you for your insignificance and for the absurd implications of your claims as they relate to the global scientific community. If you are pining for that debate, then go perform mountains of scientific research and present your results for review by the major journals and scientific societies of the world.

No, you have not presented any real challenge to any accepted theory by squawking on the internet.

"Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board."

I promise you that nobody cares.