Choosing a faith

Especially if there are any royalties or commissions involved. I had family in the area back then.

Are you really that innocent? Do you not know that porn is infamous for being one of the first uses of any new media? This has been going on since Grog and Tor exchanged stones with sketches on them.The scientists made a tool. You sex fiends used it for your smut.

And I deeply resent you trying to lay this on science.

Oh, I do indeed. But there has got to be a reason and I thought I had one. Thing is, I can see the human bounds I crossed over.Withdrawn.

He likes to watch.

That's fine GDR, but there still are the victims in their anguish and pain. All to serve as a lesson on what YOU shouldn't do. Their lives gone or forever scared to serve as a lesson on "what's good". That is still bad evil. Not infinitely loving at all.

Well, Phat, that would be me. I determined what the gods could/not do. Sadly, none of them passed the vetting process and had to be dissolved back into the void. I killed your gods, Phat. All of them. And all I did was think. Wow. Kill all the gods with the mind of an ape. Same one what made them, actually. Yes, this universe contains a lot of irony.Anyway, sorry about ... no, not so sorry about your gods, Phat.

Not likely. There is just too much of it. Space is big. Space is really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. We already claim this. In fact, we claim ourselves the sole source of all humanity, the good, the bad and the ugly. There is no other source of anything human. Reality does seem to be trending in that direction. Not sure (and will never know) if H.cyberneticus can be instantiated before H.sapiens succums.

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, The Third Way, is blown way out of proportion. Hyped ... and then hyped again. "By who?" or "By whom?" The answer to both is the public media. Surprised?EES is a call for more intellectual respect for known/studied evolutionary mechanisms that it's proponents feel are under appreciated (with too few awards and research grants).

quote:

---

Kevin Laland, the scientist who organised the contentious Royal Society conference, believes it is time for proponents of neglected evolutionary sub-fields to band together. Laland and his fellow proponents of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, the EES, call for a new way of thinking about evolution – one that starts not by seeking the simplest explanation, or the universal one, but what combination of approaches offers the best explanation to biology’s major questions. Ultimately, they want their sub-fields – plasticity, evolutionary development, epigenetics, cultural evolution – not just recognised, but formalised in the canon of biology.

---

I can't disagree with the pushback. The Modern Synthesis, like any theory, can be strengthened but some rabbit holes, while fascinating, are too wrapped in complex minutia to be either help or hindrance to the greater understanding.

quote:

---

Brian and Deborah Charlesworth are considered by many to be high priests of the tradition that descends from the modern synthesis. They are eminent thinkers, who have written extensively on the place of new theories in evolutionary biology, and they don’t believe any radical revision is needed. Some argue that they are too conservative, but they insist they are simply careful – cautious about dismantling a tried-and-tested framework in favour of theories that lack evidence. They are interested in fundamental truths about evolution, not explaining every diverse result of the process.

​

“We’re not here to explain the elephant’s trunk, or the camel’s hump. If such explanations could even be possible,” Brian Charlesworth told me. Instead, he said, evolutionary theory should be universal, focusing on the small number of factors that apply to how every living thing develops. “It’s easy to get hung up on ‘you haven’t explained why a particular system works the way it does’. But we don’t need to know,” Deborah told me. It’s not that the exceptions are uninteresting; it’s just that they aren’t all that important.

---

Do we need a new theory of evolution? | Evolution | The GuardianIf you have been a fan of Dr. PZ Myers ( Pharyngula ) over these last twenty years then you know plasticity, evo-devo, epigenetics, these new radical hypotheses aren't all that new, or radical. They are, in fact, recognised sub-disciplines under the present Modern Synthesis. Cultural evolution ... not so much. Real bunch of crap floating around that one (Jordan Peterson).Evolution is not in any intellectual trouble bordering on collapse. Just a friendly jockeying for the limelight among the girls.

No one would expect to receive a semester's worth of paleontology training in a message forum on the internet. It's stupid to ask.Do you have years of expertise to identify a traditional fossil when you see one? No you don't. You don't know the language or the concepts to understand and NO ONE can teach you that if you are not ready to learn ... and you are not.We could bring a thousand pics of transitional fossils between species to this forum today and you would reject them all because you DO NOT WANT TO KNOW! They destroy your religious fantasy and call your ideas of god false.If you really want to learn, if you really want to see and know, then go to any natural history museum in the world and see their collections. Many thousands exist in every collection. The Smithsonian and the Field Museum each hosts more than a million such fossils, all there for you to see. Ask and they will show you the transitions. The reality is there if you are willing to learn.But you don't want to know the truth. You would rather come here and preach your satan.

Hey, candle2, just to rub your nose in it though I know this is beyond you. Others here will understand.Do you want to see a quick easy example of a transitional fossil? Do you want to see a real-life flesh and blood living transitional fossil?Go look in the mirror.

Why? You'll just deny anything and everything I show.Besides, dunderhead, like I said in my message, you don't have the most basic understanding of what I would show you.And besides, dunderhead2, The evolution of dinos from pelycosaurs, archosaurs, and synapsids happened over a 120 million year period some 250 million years ago and you are not going to see that transition in one set of bones. You won't be willing to understand how evolution works and, frankly, you're not worth the effort to try to teach you.But, since you begged ... Sauropsida - WikipediaDo you see the transition details? Can you tell that this is pre-dino? If you knew what you were looking at you could instantly tell this is pre-dino.Doesn't work over the internet. This cannot replace a class in paleontology. Get thee to school.

Satan is a generic word for god. They are interchangable. Synonyms. You will never see the irony.

quote:

---

“We found preservational potential in all sorts of fossils,” Wiemann says. Using Raman microspectroscopy to identify the organic and inorganic contents of the soft tissue structures, the team found they were not made up of original proteins but instead had been chemically transformed into polymer compounds known as advanced glycoxidation end products (AGEs) and advanced lipoxidation end products (ALEs).

---

Dinosaur soft tissues preserved as polymersYeah, it's easy to "fossilize" organic tissues. It's no mystery. None of your satan majik needed and the timeline of many 70+ millions of years remains intact. Your lies didn't change anything. That's just the point of the science. If controlled properly we see everything work the same in the lab as out there. Atoms, chemistry, biology, genetics all work the same. The fun part is when we find something we haven't seen in the lab before. We get to take in and study the bejesus ... or rather the besatan ... outa the think.Name me something in our lab that is wrong from reality. It's not there, candle2. You lie again. Not all evolutionists are qualified to judge. Those that study the geochemical reality know that Chicxulub happened and the vast majority of them agree it gave the dino's a very bad day and ... with help from the Deccan Traps a half-million years later ... ended the dinosaurians, almost.Why are you trying to tell us what we already know? The question of Chicxulub does not justify you making up an evil satan-god. Yes, and very little of it comes from the knowledge sources who have already answered the questions and debunked the creationists' false problems. Creationists, like you, try to lie controversy into being and only look the dumber for it. Serious? Did you even look at concentration levels? How can a person be so damn dumb as to not look at the iridium levels you are talking about? The iridium in the K-T layer (I'm old and I still get to call it that) is multiple times what any volcanoes could produce. That is one of the stupidest statements you really didn't need to make.You deny the most basic knowledge of the Earth. You fight against reality ... and you do it all to justify your belief in your satan. You are a fool.

Well of course satan is not a actual entity. None of candle2's gods, ghosts or talking snakes are real entities even though in his mind they are very much so.As with you, candle2 bristles at the entanglement of this supposed infinite loving god with its personification of infinite evil. The two are the same. They are synonyms. Other than being fake, false and not real the two share the same instantiation.I like thinking the trinity as god the father, his alter ego god the son and the evil enforcer god the satan. More than adequate reasons to reject the whole thing.

No it isn't. Plate tectonics has been happening on this planet for billions of years and there isn't anything close to Chicxulub in its results. Yet we have thousands of examples we know with scientific certainty where big honking space rocks producing exactly what Chicxulub presents.Again with the unevidenced claims. Insistence on fantasy. Lies.