Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Hollie]

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,

Why not?

I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.

I'll break my observation down with you. . . .

First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?

it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?

So a mutation can't add new information because it'll kill you or it'll be non-functional?

I didn't say that. This is precisely why I'm breaking things down with you. All I'm asking you right now: do you agree that the above is an apt summary of the standard model regarding gene duplication?

What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?

 

[Ringtone]

smh. You are going in circles instead of admitting you lost the argument. Your own writing betrays you.

More BS, James, and what's most hilarious is that you're unwittingly contradicting the historical architects of the Kalam Cosmological Argument with which you supposedly agree, indeed, unwittingly contradicting the logical, mathematical and empirical imperatives on which it's predicated.

I suspect you got this mathematical monstrosity—i.e., that an actual infinite only exists in the supernatural world—from a misunderstanding of the qualitative infinity of classical theism or from Aristotle's notion, which in his mind had nothing to do with the conceptual existentiality of an actual infinite, but had to do with his mistaken notion of the eternality of time.

Once again, James, what, precisely, is the definitively final, real/actual value of the surreal number ∞? Where precisely does this surreal number take on a definitively final, real/actual value in the supernatural world?

It's a mathematical concept of quantitative boundlessness only, James. It's not a definitively final value!


More to the point, precisely how does the mathematical concept of infinity (which denotes a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something) exist in anything other than minds?

 

[Ringtone]

What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?

Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited "The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations", a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.

I think you better review your own citation in post #126. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?

I got to tell ya, between you, Hollie, and James, it's been a real hoot today. Of course, abu afak's ignorance regarding the origin of the self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.

By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too. I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.

 

[james bond]

Abiogenesis has been proven to be impossible via the swan neck experiment.

Lie.

The scientific method does not lie and is repeatable. One of the strongest arguments creationists have for no intelligent aliens and no organisms on Mars. If I was an atheist, then I'd have to question abiogenesis as something people thought happen like spontaneous generation, but science disproved it.

 

[james bond]

smh. You are going in circles instead of admitting you lost the argument. Your own writing betrays you.

More BS, James, and what's most hilarious is that you're unwittingly contradicting the historical architects of the Kalam Cosmological Argument with which you supposedly agree, indeed, unwittingly contradicting the logical, mathematical and empirical imperatives on which it's predicated.

I suspect you got this mathematical monstrosity—i.e., that an actual infinite only exists in the supernatural world—from a misunderstanding of the qualitative infinity of classical theism or from Aristotle's notion, which in his mind had nothing to do with the conceptual existentiality of an actual infinite, but had to do with his mistaken notion of the eternality of time.

Once again, James, what, precisely, is the definitively final, real/actual value of the surreal number ∞? Where precisely does this surreal number take on a definitively final, real/actual value in the supernatural world?

It's a mathematical concept of quantitative boundlessness only, James. It's not a definitively final value!


More to the point, precisely how does the mathematical concept of infinity (which denotes a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something) exist in anything other than minds?

How can you call BS when Aristotle backs me up? Logic and sound reasoning back me up. CK Chesterton and Karl Popper back me up. I don't know why you do not get it. You ask me what is the actual value of infinity and I already told you it does not exist in the natural world. Atheists and their scientists seem to have mixed up potential infinity with actual infinity for they believe in singularity. How does it have an actual value in the supernatural world? By God. God is infinite. His power and presence is infinite. The afterlife is infinite. Space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here because of the creator.

 

[james bond]

If it's OK with you, I'll manage the various gods on an as-needed basis.

One doesn't manage God. You are terribly ignorant on the subject despite all the discussions we had. For example, you think there are multiple gods. Thus, I ask you questions about evolution and get very little answers.

 

[james bond]

Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. You can say "gods did it!", but that is still a form of abiogenesis. Life from no life.

That's really dumb. Like I said before, your punishment will be watch to see if abiogenesis happens for billions of years. When it doesn't happen, then you get to watch for more billions of years. I don't think you understand how long is a billion years or million years. With all the catastrophism, the Earth can't possibly last that long.

 

[Hollie]

What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?

Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited "The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations", a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.

I think you better review your own citation in post #126. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?

I got to tell ya, between you, Hollie, and James, it's been a real hoot today. Of course, abu afak's ignorance regarding the origin of the self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.

By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too. I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.

That’s actually pretty funny, You claim to have read a paper you obviously never read.

You also claim knowledge of matters related to science you obviously don’t have and have never studied.

Sans any training in the matters of science, you are sans an objective opinion.

I’m afraid you are just a clone of the Disco’tute clowns in the silly YouTube video you opened this thread with. You don’t see the absurdity that charlatans with no background in the biological sciences are yattering about the impossibility of biological evolution. You have become a hand-me-down charlatan, an accomplice to the buffoonery of Disco’tute charlatans.

 

[ding]

Nature filling voids doesn't seem like a random behavior.

Because it isn't. Selection isn't random.

That's because nature isn't random. But you still seem to be ignoring that it happens all at once across the species in unison.

 

[Hollie]

If it's OK with you, I'll manage the various gods on an as-needed basis.

One doesn't manage God. You are terribly ignorant on the subject despite all the discussions we had. For example, you think there are multiple gods. Thus, I ask you questions about evolution and get very little answers.

One actually does manage the gods.

All the gods ever invented have been invented by humans. I would agree that Christians, like other inventors of gods, managed to create their gods and slather those gods with human attributes and then cower in fear before those gods. Christians have even invented their gods with competitors, of a fashion in characters as you have described as men in red onion skin outfits.

 

[ding]

Not when a new species is emerging it doesn't. Let's take humans for instance. Humans from 10,000 years ago have the same physiology as humans today. Very little has changed. Which is the reason the fossil record doesn't capture the transitions. There aren't any.

False. Example: two isolated populations of one species undergo gradual changes until they are distinct species.

Punctuated equilibrium and the fossil record say otherwise. So does 10,000 years of human evolution.

Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[8] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

A year before their 1972 Eldredge and Gould paper, Niles Eldredge published a paper in the journal Evolution which suggested that gradual evolution was seldom seen in the fossil record and argued that Ernst Mayr's standard mechanism of allopatric speciation might suggest a possible resolution.[6]

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hollie]

What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?

Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited "The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations", a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.

I think you better review your own citation in post #126. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?

I got to tell ya, between you, Hollie, and James, it's been a real hoot today. Of course, abu afak's ignorance regarding the origin of the self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.

By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too. I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.

I’ll take your usual sidestep around another completely ignorant comment about something you call “the standard model regarding gene duplication'' as just another gaffe in a long line of gaffes.

 

[Ringtone]

How can you call BS when Aristotle backs me up? Logic and sound reasoning back me up. CK Chesterton and Karl Popper back me up. I don't know why you do not get it. You ask me what is the actual value of infinity and I already told you it does not exist in the natural world. Atheists and their scientists seem to have mixed up potential infinity with actual infinity for they believe in singularity. How does it have an actual value in the supernatural world? By God. God is infinite. His power and presence is infinite. The afterlife is infinite. Space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here because of the creator.

I just showed you in the above that Aristotle DOES NOT back you up! C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper do not back you up either, and you cannot provide any citation showing that they ever held to the idiotic notion that the actually infinite exist outside of mnds. An actual infinity is a mathematical concept of quantity, not a theological concept of quality.

God is NOT an actual infinite! God is NOT an actual infinite! God is NOT an actual infinite!

I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain. I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain.

For the third time, the qualitative infinity of classical theism has absolutely nothing to do with the quantitative infinities of mathematics. They are categorically distinct things. Stop conflating them.

God is not an infinitely divisible composite, as if he were a being of physical magnitude comprised of parts. When we say that God is infinite, we do not mean that he is an actual infinite or actually infinite, anymore than we mean that he is a potential infinite or potentially infinite. Potential and actual infinities are mathematical concepts of quantity, not theological concepts of quality.

Hence, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's an indivisibly perfect being of incomparable greatness.

The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something. The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.

This mathematical concept only exists in minds. This mathematical concept only exists in minds.

I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time. I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time.

I already told you it [the actually infinite] does not exist in the natural world.

And I have told you now for at least the third time that your assertion is false, but because you will not think or be taught, you keep repeating the same mindless blathersmack. Human beings are part of nature. This mathematical concept exists in our minds, just as it exists in the minds of angels and in the mind of God. What you should be saying is that the actually infinite does not exist in the natural world outside of minds, as only the potentially infinite has existentiality outside of minds.

The afterlife is infinite.

God is eternal, timelessly existing forever without beginning or end. You might say that God is the Eternal Now. The afterlife for us is everlasting, without end. Mathematically, at any given moment in time or being, our afterlives will also be a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, precisely because there will always be more and more in the future. Our afterlives will never be an actual infinite because the actually infinite is always being approached, but never reached. Once again, an actual infinite only exists as a mathematical concept of boundlessness in minds , never as a concretely realized state of being outside of minds.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.


To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly

I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation. I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise. I said:

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,

Still looking for your proof?

 

[james bond]

How can you call BS when Aristotle backs me up? Logic and sound reasoning back me up. CK Chesterton and Karl Popper back me up. I don't know why you do not get it. You ask me what is the actual value of infinity and I already told you it does not exist in the natural world. Atheists and their scientists seem to have mixed up potential infinity with actual infinity for they believe in singularity. How does it have an actual value in the supernatural world? By God. God is infinite. His power and presence is infinite. The afterlife is infinite. Space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here because of the creator.

I just showed you in the above that Aristotle DOES NOT back you up! C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper do not back you up either, and you cannot provide any citation showing that they ever held to the idiotic notion that the actually infinite exist outside of mnds. An actual infinity is a mathematical concept of quantity, not a theological concept of quality.

God is NOT an actual infinite! God is NOT an actual infinite! God is NOT an actual infinite!

I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain. I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain.

For the third time, the qualitative infinity of classical theism has absolutely nothing to do with the quantitative infinities of mathematics. They are categorically distinct things. Stop conflating them.

God is not an infinitely divisible composite, as if he were a being of physical magnitude comprised of parts. When we say that God is infinite, we do not mean that he is an actual infinite or actually infinite, anymore than we mean that he is a potential infinite or potentially infinite. Potential and actual infinities are mathematical concepts of quantity, not theological concepts of quality.

Hence, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's an indivisibly perfect being of incomparable greatness.

The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something. The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.

This mathematical concept only exists in minds. This mathematical concept only exists in minds.

I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time. I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time.

I already told you it [the actually infinite] does not exist in the natural world.

And I have told you now for at least the third time that your assertion is false, but because you will not think or be taught, you keep repeating the same mindless blathersmack. Human beings are part of nature. This mathematical concept exists in our minds, just as it exists in the minds of angels and in the mind of God. What you should be saying is that the actually infinite does not exist in the natural world outside of minds, as only the potentially infinite has existentiality outside of minds.

The afterlife is infinite.

God is eternal, timelessly existing forever without beginning or end. You might say that God is the Eternal Now. The afterlife for us is everlasting, without end. Mathematically, at any given moment in time or being, our afterlives will also be a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, precisely because there will always be more and more in the future. Our afterlives will never be an actual infinite because the actually infinite is always being approached, but never reached. Once again, an actual infinite only exists as a mathematical concept of boundlessness in minds , never as a concretely realized state of being outside of minds.

You are such a stubborn nutgoober who is enamored with his own thoughts. Just because it exists in your mind doesn't make it real. Have you heard about imagination? I have to deal with the sick atheists here and they cannot be convinced. People and I do not know what you are talking about anymore. You should've stopped with the KCA Parts I and II.

 

[Hollie]

How can you call BS when Aristotle backs me up? Logic and sound reasoning back me up. CK Chesterton and Karl Popper back me up. I don't know why you do not get it. You ask me what is the actual value of infinity and I already told you it does not exist in the natural world. Atheists and their scientists seem to have mixed up potential infinity with actual infinity for they believe in singularity. How does it have an actual value in the supernatural world? By God. God is infinite. His power and presence is infinite. The afterlife is infinite. Space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here because of the creator.

I just showed you in the above that Aristotle DOES NOT back you up! C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper do not back you up either, and you cannot provide any citation showing that they ever held to the idiotic notion that the actually infinite exist outside of mnds. An actual infinity is a mathematical concept of quantity, not a theological concept of quality.

God is NOT an actual infinite! God is NOT an actual infinite! God is NOT an actual infinite!

I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain. I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain.

For the third time, the qualitative infinity of classical theism has absolutely nothing to do with the quantitative infinities of mathematics. They are categorically distinct things. Stop conflating them.

God is not an infinitely divisible composite, as if he were a being of physical magnitude comprised of parts. When we say that God is infinite, we do not mean that he is an actual infinite or actually infinite, anymore than we mean that he is a potential infinite or potentially infinite. Potential and actual infinities are mathematical concepts of quantity, not theological concepts of quality.

Hence, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's an indivisibly perfect being of incomparable greatness.

The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something. The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.

This mathematical concept only exists in minds. This mathematical concept only exists in minds.

I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time. I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time.

I already told you it [the actually infinite] does not exist in the natural world.

And I have told you now for at least the third time that your assertion is false, but because you will not think or be taught, you keep repeating the same mindless blathersmack. Human beings are part of nature. This mathematical concept exists in our minds, just as it exists in the minds of angels and in the mind of God. What you should be saying is that the actually infinite does not exist in the natural world outside of minds, as only the potentially infinite has existentiality outside of minds.

The afterlife is infinite.

God is eternal, timelessly existing forever without beginning or end. You might say that God is the Eternal Now. The afterlife for us is everlasting, without end. Mathematically, at any given moment in time or being, our afterlives will also be a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, precisely because there will always be more and more in the future. Our afterlives will never be an actual infinite because the actually infinite is always being approached, but never reached. Once again, an actual infinite only exists as a mathematical concept of boundlessness in minds , never as a concretely realized state of being outside of minds.

“God is eternal, timelessly existing forever without beginning or end.”

The above is precisely why religious extremists are so revolted by science and the pursuit of knowledge. Science discovery and knowledge are a direct threat to their beliefs in various gods. Evolution is concerned with the mechanisms driving the diversity of life. Evolution is a process that has been on-going for billions of years which is in direct contradiction to a young earth and supernatural creation. This is why “Darwinism” is attacked ruthlessly by the Christian extremists. The ultimate origins of the universe, gods, devils, angels, etc., are simply not an issue for evolutionary processes as those processes work regardless of how the universe got here.

Incidentally, It is not necessarily the case that the various gods have to be eternal. That assumption comes with the presumption that time goes on forever, and that the universe exists somewhere along a presumed infinite span of time. There is no reason to presume that time has a form of independent existence, but is actually another component of the universe along with space and energy and matter. The origins of the universe are unknown but scientists have learned not to rely on simple assumptions about properties such as gravity and time.

It is also true that it is not a scientific or mathematical impossibility for life to have been sparked from non-living material. Not surprisingly, it is the religious extremists who make that claim. I have never read a study in which a geneticist, biologist (outside of the ID’iot creationer ministries), or NASA calculated the odds of life forming as being zero. Our very young exploration of the universe means it is not possible to make any meaningful calculations of “odds against life off of this planet” without a detailed model. A sufficiently detailed model does not exist. There is nothing yet discovered to exclude the possibility that biological life coukd be highly probable across the universe under the right conditions. Similarly, there is nothing yet discovered to presume the Earth is the only place where biological life exists. In either case, evolution deals with what happens after biological life begins.

 

[Hollie]

How can you call BS when Aristotle backs me up? Logic and sound reasoning back me up. CK Chesterton and Karl Popper back me up. I don't know why you do not get it. You ask me what is the actual value of infinity and I already told you it does not exist in the natural world. Atheists and their scientists seem to have mixed up potential infinity with actual infinity for they believe in singularity. How does it have an actual value in the supernatural world? By God. God is infinite. His power and presence is infinite. The afterlife is infinite. Space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here because of the creator.

I just showed you in the above that Aristotle DOES NOT back you up! C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper do not back you up either, and you cannot provide any citation showing that they ever held to the idiotic notion that the actually infinite exist outside of mnds. An actual infinity is a mathematical concept of quantity, not a theological concept of quality.

God is NOT an actual infinite! God is NOT an actual infinite! God is NOT an actual infinite!

I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain. I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain.

For the third time, the qualitative infinity of classical theism has absolutely nothing to do with the quantitative infinities of mathematics. They are categorically distinct things. Stop conflating them.

God is not an infinitely divisible composite, as if he were a being of physical magnitude comprised of parts. When we say that God is infinite, we do not mean that he is an actual infinite or actually infinite, anymore than we mean that he is a potential infinite or potentially infinite. Potential and actual infinities are mathematical concepts of quantity, not theological concepts of quality.

Hence, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's an indivisibly perfect being of incomparable greatness.

The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something. The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.

This mathematical concept only exists in minds. This mathematical concept only exists in minds.

I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time. I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time.

I already told you it [the actually infinite] does not exist in the natural world.

And I have told you now for at least the third time that your assertion is false, but because you will not think or be taught, you keep repeating the same mindless blathersmack. Human beings are part of nature. This mathematical concept exists in our minds, just as it exists in the minds of angels and in the mind of God. What you should be saying is that the actually infinite does not exist in the natural world outside of minds, as only the potentially infinite has existentiality outside of minds.

The afterlife is infinite.

God is eternal, timelessly existing forever without beginning or end. You might say that God is the Eternal Now. The afterlife for us is everlasting, without end. Mathematically, at any given moment in time or being, our afterlives will also be a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, precisely because there will always be more and more in the future. Our afterlives will never be an actual infinite because the actually infinite is always being approached, but never reached. Once again, an actual infinite only exists as a mathematical concept of boundlessness in minds , never as a concretely realized state of being outside of minds.

You are such a stubborn nutgoober who is enamored with his own thoughts. Just because it exists in your mind doesn't make it real. Have you heard about imagination? I have to deal with the sick atheists here and they cannot be convinced. People and I do not know what you are talking about anymore. You should've stopped with the KCA Parts I and II.

Apparently, it is not just sick atheists who cannot be convinced of your gods but all those sick people who believe in competing gods. I suspect some of those believers in gods competing with your gods think you’re pretty sick.

lovely, lovely folks you angry religion’istas.

 

[Ringtone]

You are such a stubborn nutgoober who is enamored with his own thoughts. Just because it exists in your mind doesn't make it real. Have you heard about imagination? I have to deal with the sick atheists here and they cannot be convinced. People and I do not know what you are talking about anymore. You should've stopped with the KCA Parts I and II.

You don't grasp what I'm talking about because you're still conflating the qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities (potential and actual) of mathematics in your mind. They are categorically distinct. Stop conflating them.

 

[ding]

It's mind blowing how evolution explodes across a species all at once in unison to create a new species.

 

[ReinyDays]

It's mind blowing how evolution explodes across a species all at once in unison to create a new species.

That's because is doesn't ... it starts with a single mutation in a single individual ... only this individual's offspring will carry the improved genetic material ... IF this mutation improves reproductive capacity, THEN the mutation will eventually spread throughout the population ... and this takes many many generations ...