how quickly do proteins evolve ?

Right, we get it, you know less than nothing about it.

Yet you have strong opinions on it anyway.

All you have accomplished is a fine demonstration of how faith handicaps the mind.
I suggest you study a real theory, like Newton's Principia or Einstein's Meaning of Relativity, go and buy them and study them. You'll notice that they both have a common feature - they take the existence of the universe and laws for granted.

1724688614032.webp


1724688707072.webp


All theories in science, EVERY theory in science, describe how an existing system behaves as time elapses.
 
I suggest you study a real theory, like Newton's Principia or Einstein's Meaning of Relativity, go and buy them and study them. You'll notice that they both have a common feature - they take the existence of the universe and laws for granted.

View attachment 1001757

View attachment 1001758

All theories in science, EVERY theory in science, describe how an existing system behaves as time elapses.
I suggest that you know less than nothing about the universe from nothing theory or about evolution and should stop making people laugh by giving them uninformed, bad advice on any of it.
 
I suggest that you know less than nothing about the universe from nothing theory or about evolution and should stop making people laugh by giving them uninformed, bad advice on any of it.
There is no "universe from nothing theory" it cannot exist, in the same way one cannot write down a mathematical equation that has no terms, if there's nothing then there's nothing to work with.

let y =
 
I suggest you study a real theory, like Newton's Principia or Einstein's Meaning of Relativity, go and buy them and study them. You'll notice that they both have a common feature - they take the existence of the universe and laws for granted.

View attachment 1001757

View attachment 1001758

All theories in science, EVERY theory in science, describe how an existing system behaves as time elapses.

I was going to suggest Be Here Now by Alan Watts ... but the tensor calculus is a nice touch ... "It is easy to see ..." is an understatement ... gamma four four, easy as pie ... God forbid ds should equal dl ... yeah right ...

D. T. Suzuki is another author Indy should check out, something to calm his nerves some ...
 
I was going to suggest Be Here Now by Alan Watts ... but the tensor calculus is a nice touch ... "It is easy to see ..." is an understatement ... gamma four four, easy as pie ... God forbid ds should equal dl ... yeah right ...

D. T. Suzuki is another author Indy should check out, something to calm his nerves some ...
Never heard of Alan Watts, another gap in my reading materials of which there are many!
 
Never heard of Alan Watts, another gap in my reading materials of which there are many!

Watts and Suzuki write about Zen Buddhism ... or technically what students at UC Berkeley thought was Zen Buddhism in the mid 1970's ... a lot of relaxation Yogi-type introspection ... a definite must for today's Metrosexual Man ...
 
Any hypothesis about the natural world cannot be said to be "scientific:" if it is predicated on the violation of conservation laws, it's the exact opposite, make believe fantasy masquerading as science.
You don't know the first thing about conservation laws.

Go read Emmy Noether.
 
He's down to ad hominen attacks now ... ran out of bullshit content I guess ...
The number of people who consider themselves scientifically educated yet have no grasp of metaphysics, empiricism or epistemology, never ceases to amaze me, they believe all sorts of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with science. I put it down to reading to many pop science magazines.
 
True.
I notice your arguments rely almost completely on falsehoods and half truths.
Half truths like "we cant explain the existence of laws using laws" you mean? if you dispute that then show us how one can do that, if you think I'm wrong prove it.
Which anyone could have predicted.
Yes I am predictable, it's a hallmark of being confident and knowing what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
True.

Half truths like "we cant explain the existence of laws using laws" you mean? if you dispute that then show us how one can do that, if you think I'm wrong prove it.

Yes I am predictable, it's a hallmark of being confident and knowing what I'm talking about.
Vapid babble

I'm sure the research team with their published articles and lay books would be very amused to hear you say their work doesn't exist.

What makes me curious is how you are not embarrassed of yourself.
 
Vapid babble

I'm sure the research team with their published articles and lay books would be very amused to hear you say their work doesn't exist.
You are assuming that they (whoever these people are) actually do say what you claim they are saying.

You claimed

"A totally self consistent theory has now been formed for a universe for nothing"

well that's your interpretation of something, is there any hard evidence for this? is there any physicist saying this?

It's almost certain that you've excitedly misinterpreted something, think it says something it does not, so please, fire away, lets see what it is that is leading you to believe this, lets see the "papers" and "books".
 
You are assuming that they (whoever these people are) actually do say what you claim they are saying.
No I am not. I have actually read the book and read articles on their work.

You somehow think you can undermine their work despite knowing less than nothing about it. Which is funny.

And you make this same error quite often. The reality is that YOU commit these errors and dishonest acts, so you assume others do.

Human nature is the same, anywhere you go.
 
No I am not. I have actually read the book and read articles on their work.
Sure, but you've likely misinterpreted what you read.
You somehow think you can undermine their work despite knowing less than nothing about it. Which is funny.
What work? All we have is your claim that others are saying something, it's you I'm undermining.
And you make this same error quite often. The reality is that YOU commit these errors and dishonest acts, so you assume others do.

Human nature is the same, anywhere you go.
It's almost certain that you've hastily misinterpreted something, now thinking it says something it does not, so please, fire away, lets see what it is that is leading you to believe this, lets see the "papers" and "books", please don't tell us you don't have any after making such vociferous claims.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but you've likely misinterpreted what you read.
Which of course you could not possibly know, as you know less than nothing about any of it.

Yet you said "likely" anyway.

This was a very clear demonstration of your dubious methods.

A rational, normal adult would go read up on it before commenting again.
 
Which of course you could not possibly know, as you know less than nothing about any of it.

Yet you said "likely" anyway.

This was a very clear demonstration of your dubious methods.
So there are no books or papers, that's what I thought. Move along please folks, nothing to see here.
A rational, normal adult would go read up on it before commenting again.
I have, that's how I know you're misinterpreting something.
 
So there are no books or papers, that's what I thought
Now you're just lying.

These discussions with faithers always end the same way. You make no progress, then you get frustrated and start lying.

Someday you will come to understand that these failures are your own fault.
 
Now you're just lying.
You've shown us no papers or books that say what you claim they say, anyone can see by looking at your repeated refusals.
These discussions with faithers always end the same way. You make no progress, then you get frustrated and start lying.
Yep, they end by me asking for evidence and you twiddling your thumbs.
Someday you will come to understand that these failures are your own fault.
That's right, blame me for your inability to back up your fantastical claims.
 
Back
Top Bottom