Last life period of the common ancestor for apes

What she tells keep working our present facts are subject to possible change in the future .
Thank you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

precisely so young sir
and
she's cute too

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A}

B}

B is true. But you seem to think that means A has a chance - that if science is always changing it might some day come around to agreement with the nonsense you posted in A.
It won't. You are going to be wrong forever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are implying science is an entity . Science is nothing more the study ( in this case evolution ) of a process that MIGHT have taken place .
As far ( A ) nonsense . It was given as an illustration
I understand it might be said nonsense . You just triggered my mind, ( horse and donkey ) produce a mule . Keep on mind bestiality is nothing new . again this is an example.
"Wrong for ever" If I can replicate my experiment , that will give a support for my argument .
I hope you understand my point.

 

Darwinian evolution and creationism are ideas totally at odds. With creationism everything is fully ordered, evolution being the mere unrolling of a predetermined plan.

Darwinian evolution however admits that the universe is fundamentally disordered. Hence the cause of variation is truly random - and the reason for the selection not something carried out by the universe as a whole in accord with some 'divine' master plan.

Big Bang is creationism pure and simple. While 14,000,000,000 years is different to the BBashers' 6,000 years the BB advocates and the BBashers are BOTH creationists and so are fundamentally alike.

Einstein, whose mathematical speculations led to the Big Bang, also understood the radical opposition between his patter and Darwinian evolution.

So don't confuse Einstein with genuine Darwinian evolution whatever you do!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

FOLZONI

 

Abstract: Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping).

CTMU

 

Dear Spellbound,

Greetings.

Well your statement sure sounds OK...

...but my question is: is this theory of reality (underpinning the scientific model & mechanism) deterministic, looking only "to appreciate necessity" (& thus ignoring, trivializing or editing out disorder) or is it indeterministic, seeking to appreciate chance and disorder as fundamental components of nature? Am I making myself clear?

FOLZONI

 

This theory, the CTMU (short for Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe), mathematically describes free will as self-determinacy and says that it is stratified, where the purpose of each individual agent level observer-participant life is to seek self-actualization. It beats the Cartesian mind/body dualism. It also uses the self-similarity concept to describe the fractal nature of the universe. I believe this would be termed hology. In the absolute truth of this author's mind, we can answer some of the most profound problems in mathematics (a reality unto itself). Mathematics governs the universe. It is a powerfully explanatory language that is shared among all minds. The predicates "real" and "unreal" are the grounds for a new meta-logic required by the ctmu if my theory is correct.

 

The evidence for the BB is overwhelming. And yes, fanatical creationists could interpret it as creationism certainly. As usual though they are grasping at straws.
The BB also is a credit to the scientific method and peer review, in that despite this apparent loophole that our creationist friends and the Catholic church are able to grasp eagerly, they adhered to what the observational evidence was telling them. In most cases. Fred Hoyle, Bondi and Gold were exceptions, but the strength of the scientific method held firm as is the case with logic and reasonability.
Although we can only speculate at this time about the how and why of the BB, professional cosmologists do have ideas.
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

In my own opinion, the greatest strength of modern day cosmology is how the BB, SR/GR and the Particle zoo model are all able to compliment each other.

Evolution though is most certainly a fact. That cannot logically be denied.

 

Can you in detail in your word tel me what does Big Bang means what have supposed have taken place

 

In the words and the framework of the BB and of most accepted professionals.
The BB was simply an evolution of space and time [as we know them] in the first instant. Matter evolved a short time later.
We have no evidence for anything at t=0 to t+10-43 seconds, as at that quantum level our laws and GR do not apply.
But from that, we are able to apply knowledge already known and the results of LHC and other accelerator experiments, to give a reasonable description of the evolution of the universe/spacetime, from that short period after the BB.
The closer to t+10-43 seconds, the less absolute certainty applies, conversely, the further we move from that first Planck instant, the more confident cosmologists are.

 

paddoboy, do you suppose that you might possibly be somewhat mistaken when you state/claim that any "absolute certainty applies" in relation to the BB theory?

After all, in Real Science, "absolute certainty" is reserved for Laws...not Theories, nor Hypotheses...or so I was taught in Elementary School and Junior High School and Senior High School and at numerous Colleges.

paddoboy, do you suppose that you could, possibly, maybe, peruse what is written at the following Link?
: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html
You may find the part titled :"What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty" worth reading...

 

Darwinian evolution and Einstein's blatherings are utterly opposed.

Hence your idea of 'evolution' is mere unrolling of a predetermined plan. The "peer review" you extol is only a bunch of self-referential nerds divorced from the practical needs of society, THE COMPLETE FAILURE OF THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC METHOD - hence too the failure to invent nuclear fusion in time to stop runaway global warming!

FOLZONI

 

Your reply is overly mathematical - and the mathematical treatment of free will does not go beyond prime numbers.

In other words (IOW) there is no formula for prime numbers - only negative formulas e.g. no even numbers except 2, no number ending in -5 except 5 etc. Yet prime numbers are infinite, though not prescribable, but they are also fixed for all eternity! Prime numbers are the same for us as for aliens.

Hence mathematics misses the essential feature of free will - that it has to rely, materially, on the infinite divisibility of matter and thus the fact that the disorder of nature cannot be mathematically described in the manner of deterministic chaos.

FOLZONI

 

Sorry, but you are completely incorrect.

This is also incorrect, i am not sure what speculations you are talking about but it doesn't matter because the BBT was developed independently of Einstein's ideas.

How could any sane person confuse Einstein with evolution? That doesn't even make sense.

 

Well that is obviously false and just silly trolling.

Nuclear fusion already exists it can't be invented. I think you mean there is no current method to maintain a controlled fusion reaction and harness the energy from that reaction. That is not a failure of the scientific method - it is just that controlled fusion is very difficult.

 

see post #10