Origins Thread

[AN2]

ANNOYING atheist talks to physicist about "fine tuning"* -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2pkWs4QtP2Y

*A "teleological" argument for the existence of Christ, your lord and saviour

 

[Tiger]

This video unpacks Alex O Connor’s recent interview trying to answer questions about the fine tuning of the universe and the poor job his guest does in trying to answer the conundrum


View: https://youtu.be/4ideGFF6QR0?feature=shared

 

[Donald J Trump]

I personally feel the many worlds theory is perhaps the best explanation to our origins from both a scientific and religious view point.

 

[Tiger]

I personally feel the many worlds theory is perhaps the best explanation to our origins from both a scientific and religious view point.

The many worlds theory is pure speculation—there's no empirical evidence for even one other universe, let alone infinite ones. It's not science, it's a metaphysical escape hatch to avoid the obvious: our universe appears fine-tuned because it was designed.

From a religious standpoint, invoking countless unseen universes to explain away design only replaces God with an unprovable fantasy—hardly a step forward in understanding our origins

 

[Anderson]

The poll asks the question do you believe in Evolution, as someone who believes in God and the afterlife I would say that both can exist. There is no doubt humans today are more evolved than our ancestors but that is through education and intelligence growth.

Religion teaches us that humans wanted for nothing until they were cast out of Eden, this it's perfectly acceptable to believe that after being kicked out we would be less evolved and would have to learn for ourselves and begin some sort of evolutionary process.

 

[Nyob]

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-130758

Too much retardation to unpack in that video (and your description of it) but no one should be surprised that the retard in the baseball cap didn't understand what the physicist was saying (in the few minutes of airtime given to him)

Hint: He wasn't talking about the multiverse

ALTHOUGH the atheist darling of theists like YouTuber Daily Dose, O'Connor is useless when it comes to science, in particular. I've watched some of his stuff with physicists and I honestly get the feeling that they (the physicists) must find him a little bit frustrating to talk to. I'm not even sure Alex is a midwit, he may well have a slightly below average IQ. Nonetheless darling of the theists, hopeless when it comes to science

 

[Nyob]

The poll asks the question do you believe in Evolution, as someone who believes in God and the afterlife I would say that both can exist. There is no doubt humans today are more evolved than our ancestors but that is through education and intelligence growth.

Religion teaches us that humans wanted for nothing until they were cast out of Eden, this it's perfectly acceptable to believe that after being kicked out we would be less evolved and would have to learn for ourselves and begin some sort of evolutionary process.

Why do you make the assumption, as you seem to do, that more evolved = more intelligent?

 

[Anderson]

Why do you make the assumption, as you seem to do, that more evolved = more intelligent?

In general terms, I'd happily say that some people today are less intelligent than a slug, but wouldn't you agree that we as a collective are more intelligent today than we were 5000 years ago.

 

[Nyob]

In general terms, I'd happily say that some people today are less intelligent than a slug,

Well that's not exactly right, is it, what's that called, off to a bad start?

but wouldn't you agree that we as a collective are more intelligent today than we were 5000 years ago.

Eh, no

Okay, can you imagine our civilisation 5,000 years from now being significantly more advanced than it is today, without us as a species becoming more intelligent?

PS. You didn't really answer my question

 

[SwordOfStZip]

The poll asks the question do you believe in Evolution, as someone who believes in God and the afterlife I would say that both can exist. There is no doubt humans today are more evolved than our ancestors but that is through education and intelligence growth.

Religion teaches us that humans wanted for nothing until they were cast out of Eden, this it's perfectly acceptable to believe that after being kicked out we would be less evolved and would have to learn for ourselves and begin some sort of evolutionary process.

You can believe in a God and an afterlife and believe in macro-evolution- the question is whether you can believe in the Christian God and still believe in macro-evolution.

Everyone believes in micro-evolution, the question is about macro-evolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a completely different and superior one.

There is also the question of macro-devolution- I have heard from more than one source the idea that at least some examples of apes originated in humans who devolved down to the point where they lost their human state.

 

[Anderson]

You can believe in a God and an afterlife and believe in macro-evolution- the question is whether you can believe in the Christian God and still believe in macro-evolution.

Everyone believes in micro-evolution, the question is about macro-evolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a completely different and superior one.

There is also the question of macro-devolution- I have heard from more than one source the idea that at least some examples of apes originated in humans who devolved down to the point where they lost their human state.

The problem with macro evolution is the only species known to achieve this is us, humans. Why no other species of animals?

 

[Nyob]

You can believe in a God and an afterlife and believe in macro-evolution- the question is whether you can believe in the Christian God and still believe in macro-evolution.

Everyone believes in micro-evolution, the question is about macro-evolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a completely different and superior one.

There is also the question of macro-devolution- I have heard from more than one source the idea that at least some examples of apes originated in humans who devolved down to the point where they lost their human state.

The distinction between micro and macro evolution is a distinction made by theists for I think two very obvious reasons:

1. Micro evolution (so-called) is hard to deny
2. They cling to their biblical story of Adam and Eve

 

[Anderson]

This doesn't make any sense

If it really is just a natural process of random mutation and natural selection over time, then why is it that humans — and only humans — ended up with this kind of advanced intelligence? I mean, we’re talking millions of species on Earth, and billions of years of life evolving… and yet, here we are, the only ones building cities, launching satellites, and having existential crises about our place in the universe.

You’d think that, statistically, at least a few other animals would have stumbled onto something close to human-level intelligence by now. Especially when you consider that many species reproduce way faster than we do. Mice, insects, birds — they have generations upon generations in the time it takes one human generation to grow up. That’s way more chances for evolution to 'experiment' with mutations. But still, nothing remotely close to us has come out of it.

If evolution is supposed to be this universal, consistent process, why does it feel like it peaked with us and then just… stopped?

Maybe evolution happens, sure — I’m not denying that species adapt or change over time. But this whole idea that intelligence like ours is just the result of natural selection? It feels like a stretch when literally everything else on Earth hit a ceiling and we somehow broke through it alone.

 

[Tiger]

Over on the thread for the scientifically illiterate - James wrote this humdinger today

This kind of comment is what happens when the two lonely marbles rattling around in James’s head try to impersonate a brain—when I say he hasn’t read a single serious book on the subject, I’m not being dramatic, just accurate.

Actually, the distinction between micro and macroevolution isn't just a theistic invention—it’s acknowledged in evolutionary biology itself. Microevolution refers to small, observable variations within a species—like changes in beak size or coloration—which occur through mutation and environmental pressures. These are well-documented and repeatable.

Macroevolution, however, involves the emergence of entirely new body plans, organs, or functions—such as a land mammal evolving into a whale—which requires far more than just stacking small changes. It involves new genetic information, coordinated mutations, and systemic developmental shifts, none of which have been directly observed or have any evidence outside of storytelling. And the fossil record flat-out contradicts the story of slow, gradual evolution—during the Cambrian Explosion, all major animal groups appear suddenly and fully formed, with no traceable ancestors beneath them.

Genetically speaking, microevolution involves changes in allele frequency within a gene pool—shuffling or losing existing information. Macroevolution would require new genetic information, novel genes, and the reprogramming of developmental biology (evo-devo). But mutations are overwhelmingly neutral or harmful, and random copying errors don’t build the kind of complex, integrated systems needed for new organs or body plans. So macroevolution isn’t just ‘micro over a long time’—it requires a mechanism we’ve yet to observe.

 

[Fishalt]

Over on the thread for the scientifically illiterate - James wrote this humdinger today

View attachment 7461

This kind of comment is what happens when the two lonely marbles rattling around in James’s head try to impersonate a brain—when I say he hasn’t read a single serious book on the subject, I’m not being dramatic, just accurate.

Actually, the distinction between micro and macroevolution isn't just a theistic invention—it’s acknowledged in evolutionary biology itself. Microevolution refers to small, observable variations within a species—like changes in beak size or coloration—which occur through mutation and environmental pressures. These are well-documented and repeatable.

Macroevolution, however, involves the emergence of entirely new body plans, organs, or functions—such as a land mammal evolving into a whale—which requires far more than just stacking small changes. It involves new genetic information, coordinated mutations, and systemic developmental shifts, none of which have been directly observed or have any evidence outside of storytelling. And the fossil record flat-out contradicts the story of slow, gradual evolution—during the Cambrian Explosion, all major animal groups appear suddenly and fully formed, with no traceable ancestors beneath them.

Genetically speaking, microevolution involves changes in allele frequency within a gene pool—shuffling or losing existing information. Macroevolution would require new genetic information, novel genes, and the reprogramming of developmental biology (evo-devo). But mutations are overwhelmingly neutral or harmful, and random copying errors don’t build the kind of complex, integrated systems needed for new organs or body plans. So macroevolution isn’t just ‘micro over a long time’—it requires a mechanism we’ve yet to observe.

All this means is that there's a gap in the fossil record really. For some reason, conditions weren't preferable to producing fossils. What this doesn't prove is that human beings were created from mud, or the existence of talking snakes.

 

[Tiger]

All this means is that there's a gap in the fossil record really. For some reason, conditions weren't preferable to producing fossils. What this doesn't prove is that human beings were created from mud, or the existence of talking snakes.

Saying 'there’s a gap in the fossil record' is not a scientific explanation—it's an excuse.

You don’t get to build an entire worldview on what should be there but isn’t. The Cambrian Explosion isn’t a minor blip—it’s a massive, planet-wide event where all major animal body plans appear suddenly with no evolutionary precursors. That’s not a ‘gap,’ that’s a chasm. And pretending it’s just a matter of bad fossilisation conditions ignores the scale, the precision, and the abruptness of what we actually do observe.

In addition, there's also your total evasion of the genetic problem. Fossils aside, you can't just wave your hand and claim complex organisms evolved when we know what that requires genetically. You need vast amounts of new, functional, and coordinated genetic information. You need fully integrated developmental pathways, timing, regulatory sequences, epigenetic controls—and these don’t come from random copying errors. Mutations overwhelmingly degrade information. Evolution can tweak existing structures, but it doesn’t invent new blueprints out of nothing.

As molecular biologist Douglas Axe has shown, the odds of producing even a modest functional protein by chance are astronomically low—far beyond what the universe could reasonably generate.

 

[Tiger]

I gave reasons for theists making the distinction between what is essentially the same process

Your reply is your usual not worth reading (and too long) crap

James, you need to put yourself out of your misery and admit that you don’t have a proper understanding of this subject matter which is why you can’t discuss like an adult.

 

[Fishalt]

Saying 'there’s a gap in the fossil record' is not a scientific explanation—it's an excuse.

You don’t get to build an entire worldview on what should be there but isn’t. The Cambrian Explosion isn’t a minor blip—it’s a massive, planet-wide event where all major animal body plans appear suddenly with no evolutionary precursors. That’s not a ‘gap,’ that’s a chasm. And pretending it’s just a matter of bad fossilisation conditions ignores the scale, the precision, and the abruptness of what we actually do observe.

In addition, there's also your total evasion of the genetic problem. Fossils aside, you can't just wave your hand and claim complex organisms evolved when we know what that requires genetically. You need vast amounts of new, functional, and coordinated genetic information. You need fully integrated developmental pathways, timing, regulatory sequences, epigenetic controls—and these don’t come from random copying errors. Mutations overwhelmingly degrade information. Evolution can tweak existing structures, but it doesn’t invent new blueprints out of nothing.

As molecular biologist Douglas Axe has shown, the odds of producing even a modest functional protein by chance are astronomically low—far beyond what the universe could reasonably generate.

No you don't. What you need is time, a large sample size, and environmental differences and pressures. You still don't really understand what selection is or how it works, Tiger. And you're right, blueprints don't simply emerge from nothing. That's also not what the theory of evolution teaches.

 

[Tiger]

No you don't. What you need is time, a large sample size, and environmental differences and pressures. You still don't really understand what selection is or how it works, Tiger. And you're right, blueprints don't simply emerge from nothing. That's also not what the theory of evolution teaches.

Your reply is a textbook case of confident ignorance—leaning on buzzwords like “time” and “selection” without addressing the actual substance.

You’re just repeating slogans without engaging the real problem. ‘Time, sample size, and environmental pressure’ are not magic wands. They don't generate new functional information, which is precisely what macroevolution needs. Selection can only act on what already exists—it can’t invent new genes, novel proteins, or body plans. That’s a basic point in molecular biology, not a theistic opinion.

You say I ‘don’t understand selection,’ but it sounds like you don’t understand the difference between variation within limits (which selection can act on), and the origin of complex, specified information (which selection cannot explain). It’s like watching natural selection trim and shape a block of marble and claiming that explains how the marble came into existence in the first place. It's a category error.

You also dodge the central point: the theory of evolution does require blueprints to arise from undirected processes—random mutation and selection. But every time we look at how complex systems actually work—from molecular machines like ATP synthase to the orchestration of embryonic development—we see layers of integrated information that, by every scientific metric we have, shows hallmarks of design, not chance.

And just to be clear: quoting Darwinian talking points about ‘pressure and time’ doesn’t refute the hard mathematical limits discovered by people like Sanford, Axe, and Behe. You’re clinging to 19th-century assumptions in the face of 21st-century molecular biology.

 

[Fishalt]

Your reply is a textbook case of confident ignorance—leaning on buzzwords like “time” and “selection” without addressing the actual substance.

You’re just repeating slogans without engaging the real problem. ‘Time, sample size, and environmental pressure’ are not magic wands. They don't generate new functional information, which is precisely what macroevolution needs. Selection can only act on what already exists—it can’t invent new genes, novel proteins, or body plans. That’s a basic point in molecular biology, not a theistic opinion.

You say I ‘don’t understand selection,’ but it sounds like you don’t understand the difference between variation within limits (which selection can act on), and the origin of complex, specified information (which selection cannot explain). It’s like watching natural selection trim and shape a block of marble and claiming that explains how the marble came into existence in the first place. It's a category error.

You also dodge the central point: the theory of evolution does require blueprints to arise from undirected processes—random mutation and selection. But every time we look at how complex systems actually work—from molecular machines like ATP synthase to the orchestration of embryonic development—we see layers of integrated information that, by every scientific metric we have, shows hallmarks of design, not chance.

And just to be clear: quoting Darwinian talking points about ‘pressure and time’ doesn’t refute the hard mathematical limits discovered by people like Sanford, Axe, and Behe. You’re clinging to 19th-century assumptions in the face of 21st-century molecular biology.

You're overcomplicating it and still not getting it.

I think what you're trying to say is that evolution can't explain abiogenesis. This is accurate, to a great extent. But neither does the bible/religious/magical explanations of reality. These have neither predictive nor explanatory power of any kind. If you mean why there is order in the universe, or why things work at all, well, that's a philosophical question for the ages. I don't know why, and neither do you.

Your second paragraph is full of abstract terms that mean nothing at all, I'm afraid, and actually shows why you don't understand evolution. No evolutionist is arguing is that there's no design in organisms or the architecture thereof. There is. What we're saying that the relationship between environment and genetic mutation/variance is the designer. This is actually a very simple concept, and I think you're being deliberately obtuse on this point.

 

[Tiger]

You're overcomplicating it and still not getting it.

I think what you're trying to say is that evolution can't explain abiogenesis. This is accurate, to a great extent. But neither does the bible/religious/magical explanations of reality. These have neither predictive nor explanatory power of any kind. If you mean why there is order in the universe, or why things work at all, well, that's a philosophical question for the ages. I don't know why, and neither do you.

Your second paragraph is full of abstract terms that mean nothing at all, I'm afraid, and actually shows why you don't understand evolution. No evolutionist is arguing is that there's no design in organisms or the architecture thereof. There is. What we're saying that the relationship between environment and genetic mutation/variance is the designer. This is actually a very simple concept, and I think you're being deliberately obtuse on this point.

You seem more focused on sounding smug than actually engaging with the argument. Dismissing technical terms as 'abstract' and labeling counterpoints as 'deliberately obtuse' might win you applause in a Reddit echo chamber, but it doesn’t fly in serious discussion. The irony is, you're confidently repeating 19th-century assumptions as if they’re cutting-edge, while mocking 21st-century molecular science as 'overcomplicated.' You’re trying to bluff your way through the conversation with tone instead of substance—and it shows.

You accuse me of overcomplicating things, but what you’re actually doing is oversimplifying them to avoid the real scientific hurdles. This isn’t about abiogenesis (I never mentioned it)—though that’s another gaping hole in the materialist worldview. This is about the core claim of Darwinian evolution: that unintelligent processes can generate functional, integrated complexity. And the moment we press on that point, we get vague appeals to 'environmental pressure' as a substitute for actual mechanisms.

Calling the environment ‘the designer’ is poetic, not scientific. Environments don’t code proteins. They don’t write DNA. They don’t produce coordinated networks of gene regulation, epigenetic control, and developmental programming. Natural selection can act on existing traits, but it cannot account for the origin of the traits it selects. That’s the key issue, and you still haven’t touched it.

As for your claim that religion has no explanatory power—that's simply false. The claim that life is the product of design not only explains the presence of complex, information-rich systems, but aligns with what we know from every other domain: information and order consistently trace back to intelligence. Saying 'I don’t know, and neither do you' isn’t humility—it’s intellectual surrender masquerading as open-mindedness.

 

[Fishalt]

You seem more focused on sounding smug than actually engaging with the argument. Dismissing technical terms as 'abstract' and labeling counterpoints as 'deliberately obtuse' might win you applause in a Reddit echo chamber, but it doesn’t fly in serious discussion. The irony is, you're confidently repeating 19th-century assumptions as if they’re cutting-edge, while mocking 21st-century molecular science as 'overcomplicated.' You’re trying to bluff your way through the conversation with tone instead of substance—and it shows.

You accuse me of overcomplicating things, but what you’re actually doing is oversimplifying them to avoid the real scientific hurdles. This isn’t about abiogenesis (I never mentioned it)—though that’s another gaping hole in the materialist worldview. This is about the core claim of Darwinian evolution: that unintelligent processes can generate functional, integrated complexity. And the moment we press on that point, we get vague appeals to 'environmental pressure' as a substitute for actual mechanisms.

Calling the environment ‘the designer’ is poetic, not scientific. Environments don’t code proteins. They don’t write DNA. They don’t produce coordinated networks of gene regulation, epigenetic control, and developmental programming. Natural selection can act on existing traits, but it cannot account for the origin of the traits it selects. That’s the key issue, and you still haven’t touched it.

As for your claim that religion has no explanatory power—that's simply false. The claim that life is the product of design not only explains the presence of complex, information-rich systems, but aligns with what we know from every other domain: information and order consistently trace back to intelligence. Saying 'I don’t know, and neither do you' isn’t humility—it’s intellectual surrender masquerading as open-mindedness.

You still don't get it.

Nobody is saying that environments write DNA. What we're saying is that genetic mutations (which are changes in DNA, something else you don't seem to be able to grasp) write DNA, and these are tested by the environment, and they either work or they don't. If they don't, these changes disappear from reality. If they do, they persist, and generally accentuate. Or not. It depends.

These mutations might be slight or extreme. There are point mutations, number variations in genes and insertions and deletions and all manner of shit. These mutations are random. Whether they persist or not in the gene pool/ morphology etc et al is not random. Those 19th century ideas are as valid as ever. The theory which is observed by Darwin is observable now. The only difference is that we understand the nuts and bolts a lot better.

So no. Nature cannot "Only act on existing traits". Nature can quite literally create new ones. And does.

You have no idea what you're talking about, Tiger. This is fairly typical of creationists.

 

[Fishalt]

Eventually one causes the realisation that they are so retardingly unreasonable that one simply gives up on them

Dan has now followed in Dull Dave's footsteps. End of story. Keep my posts (if you have to steal them) and enjoy the next "Golden Age" as Tiglet imagines

Well, it doesn't help that you randomly turn Bipolar James. You invite the bans.

 

[Nyob]

Well, it doesn't help that you randomly turn Bipolar James. You invite the bans.

Triple facepalm

You're not stupid but you're rather unobservant

 

[Tiger]

You still don't get it.

Nobody is saying that environments write DNA. What we're saying is that genetic mutations (which are changes in DNA, something else you don't seem to be able to grasp) write DNA, and these are tested by the environment, and they either work or they don't. If they don't, these changes disappear from reality. If they do, they persist, and generally accentuate. Or not. It depends.

These mutations might be slight or extreme. There are point mutations, number variations in genes and insertions and deletions and all manner of shit. These mutations are random. Whether they persist or not in the gene pool/ morphology etc et al is not random. Those 19th century ideas are as valid as ever. The theory which is observed by Darwin is observable now. The only difference is that we understand the nuts and bolts a lot better.

So no. Nature cannot "Only act on existing traits". Nature can quite literally create new ones. And does.

You have no idea what you're talking about, Tiger. This is fairly typical of creationists.

I get it perfectly—you’re just recycling outdated dogma and mistaking it for discovery.

Your reply is a marvel of modern scientistic superstition—dressed in lab-coat jargon and seasoned with smugness, but at its core, it’s still the same old pagan fable of chaos birthing order. You repeat, with the earnestness of a novitiate in the Darwinian cult, that ‘mutations write DNA’—as if a typographical error somehow authors a novel. That’s not science, friend, that’s metaphysics for materialists. Or more precisely: mythology for men who fancy themselves too rational for Genesis but still believe in miracles—just so long as the miracles are random and purposeless.

Yes, mutations alter DNA. But this is like saying vandalism alters architecture. It’s trivially true—and scientifically useless. The central question isn’t whether mutations happen, but whether they generate new, coordinated biological systems. Can they build eyes, wings, or the molecular machinery of intracellular transport? No. What you’re defending isn’t biology—it’s biological alchemy: the transmutation of gibberish into genetic gold by the blind forces of time and chance, sanctified by peer review.
You declare, with great confidence and little comprehension, that nature 'creates new traits.' What you fail to understand—or perhaps hope your audience doesn’t—is that creation implies coding, coordination, and purpose. These are not the fruit of entropy. No matter how you dress it up, natural selection is not a creative force—it’s an editor, not an author. It can kill off the unfit, but it cannot invent fitness. It’s a winnowing fork, not a wand.

You sneer about creationists as if you’re wielding a scalpel. But it’s a dull one. In your worldview, intelligence is an illusion, morality is a fluke, and consciousness is an evolutionary hiccup—yet you speak as if reason itself is on your side. That’s the real comedy here: a man denying design while using his rational mind (which he insists is the product of irrational processes) to argue against rational design.

 

[Fishalt]

I get it perfectly—you’re just recycling outdated dogma and mistaking it for discovery.

Your reply is a marvel of modern scientistic superstition—dressed in lab-coat jargon and seasoned with smugness, but at its core, it’s still the same old pagan fable of chaos birthing order. You repeat, with the earnestness of a novitiate in the Darwinian cult, that ‘mutations write DNA’—as if a typographical error somehow authors a novel. That’s not science, friend, that’s metaphysics for materialists. Or more precisely: mythology for men who fancy themselves too rational for Genesis but still believe in miracles—just so long as the miracles are random and purposeless.

Yes, mutations alter DNA. But this is like saying vandalism alters architecture. It’s trivially true—and scientifically useless. The central question isn’t whether mutations happen, but whether they generate new, coordinated biological systems. Can they build eyes, wings, or the molecular machinery of intracellular transport? No. What you’re defending isn’t biology—it’s biological alchemy: the transmutation of gibberish into genetic gold by the blind forces of time and chance, sanctified by peer review.
You declare, with great confidence and little comprehension, that nature 'creates new traits.' What you fail to understand—or perhaps hope your audience doesn’t—is that creation implies coding, coordination, and purpose. These are not the fruit of entropy. No matter how you dress it up, natural selection is not a creative force—it’s an editor, not an author. It can kill off the unfit, but it cannot invent fitness. It’s a winnowing fork, not a wand.

You sneer about creationists as if you’re wielding a scalpel. But it’s a dull one. In your worldview, intelligence is an illusion, morality is a fluke, and consciousness is an evolutionary hiccup—yet you speak as if reason itself is on your side. That’s the real comedy here: a man denying design while using his rational mind (which he insists is the product of irrational processes) to argue against rational design.

Rabble. Pure, discombobulated rabble. The rantings of an intellectually deposed, fanatical midwit in a perpetual existential crisis. The answer is yes, Tiger; mutations do create various types of eyes and wings, and the various stages thereof are observable at different levels of complexity throughout Phyla relative to what is required for those organisms to survive in different environments.

There is no debate, nor discussion to be had. At all. In fact, I would hazard a guess that you have virtually no experience with natural systems, nature, ecology or the environment whatsoever. Nor do you particularly have any interest in these things. What you want is to knock hundreds of years of biological and ecological science into a cocked hat with absurd theological arguments in the interests, I suppose, of kickstarting some kind of Catholic caliphate.

Astoundingly arrogant, I must say. And incredibly narcissistic. Tragically futile.

Nobody is listening to you, Tiger. Nobody cares. And for the record, it's not atheists like me holding the Catholic Church back. It's catholics like you. You're completely and utterly repellant to moderate people, regardless of where they happen to fall on the spectrum of faith or lack thereof.

 

[Tiger]

Rabble. Pure, discombobulated rabble. The rantings of an intellectually deposed, fanatical midwit in a perpetual existential crisis. The answer is yes, Tiger; mutations do create various types of eyes and wings, and the various stages thereof are observable at different levels of complexity throughout Phyla relative to what is required for those organisms to survive in different environments.

There is no debate, nor discussion to be had. At all. In fact, I would hazard a guess that you have virtually no experience with natural systems, nature, ecology or the environment whatsoever. Nor do you particularly have any interest in these things. What you want is to knock hundreds of years of biological and ecological science into a cocked hat with absurd theological arguments in the interests, I suppose, of kickstarting some kind of Catholic caliphate.

Astoundingly arrogant, I must say. And incredibly narcissistic. Tragically futile.

Nobody is listening to you, Tiger. Nobody cares. And for the record, it's not atheists like me holding the Catholic Church back. It's catholics like you. You're completely and utterly repellant to moderate people, regardless of where they happen to fall on the spectrum of faith or lack thereof.

Is it that 'time of the month' Fishy? You seem very emotional.

What a screed, all heat and no light.

You’ve mistaken invective for intellect, and in doing so, exposed far more about yourself than you intended. What you’ve written isn’t a rebuttal — it’s a meltdown. A tempest of sneering adjectives and psychiatric projections — ‘rabble,’ ‘fanatical midwit,’ ‘Catholic caliphate’ — as if frothing contempt could disguise the vacuum where your scientific argument was supposed to be.

You parade terms like ‘natural systems’ and ‘ecology’ as though invoking the sacred liturgy of Darwinian orthodoxy exempts you from presenting evidence. It does not. The crux remains: mutations do not write blueprints. They corrupt them. Variation within kinds is not evidence for the genesis of kinds. The spectrum of eyes across species is not proof of blind craftsmanship — it’s the fingerprint of purposeful variation within design, not chaotic ascent from blindness. You’re mistaking cataloguing for causation.

You accuse me of being disinterested in the natural world, and yet it is I — not you — who defends the inherent meaning, beauty, and intelligibility of that world. You would have us believe the entire symphony of life was conducted by a deaf, drunk orchestra with no conductor, no sheet music, and no audience. You call that science. I call it the myth of the machine — a mechanistic cosmogony passed off as reason, but kept alive only by repression of the metaphysical and denial of the obvious.

And then, your mask slips completely: you reveal that what truly bothers you is not biology, but Catholicism. Not mutations, but Tradition. Your screed against 'Catholics like me' is the language of ideological control. You don't want truth — you want compliance. You want a domesticated religion, one that apologizes for its creeds and genuflects before your liberal sensibilities. That, sir, is not Christianity — it is cultural Marxism in a cassock.

Your final eh....blow — 'Nobody’s listening to you' — is not an argument, it is a marketing memo. You mistake popularity for truth, and consensus for authority. That’s the mindset of every regime that ever burned a heretic, banned a book, or silenced a dissenter. And you stand with them — not with the truth, but with the mob.

You’re not defending science. You’re defending the official mythology of the modern West — and like all state-approved myths, it cannot withstand real scrutiny. That’s why you resort to mockery instead of logic, derision instead of data. Because once the spell breaks, everyone can see the emperor has no genes.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You sneer about creationists as if you’re wielding a scalpel.

To be fair Sir creationists are extraordinarily stupid.

 

[Fishalt]

Is it that 'time of the month' Fishy? You seem very emotional.

What a screed, all heat and no light.

You’ve mistaken invective for intellect, and in doing so, exposed far more about yourself than you intended. What you’ve written isn’t a rebuttal — it’s a meltdown. A tempest of sneering adjectives and psychiatric projections — ‘rabble,’ ‘fanatical midwit,’ ‘Catholic caliphate’ — as if frothing contempt could disguise the vacuum where your scientific argument was supposed to be.

You parade terms like ‘natural systems’ and ‘ecology’ as though invoking the sacred liturgy of Darwinian orthodoxy exempts you from presenting evidence. It does not. The crux remains: mutations do not write blueprints. They corrupt them. Variation within kinds is not evidence for the genesis of kinds. The spectrum of eyes across species is not proof of blind craftsmanship — it’s the fingerprint of purposeful variation within design, not chaotic ascent from blindness. You’re mistaking cataloguing for causation.

You accuse me of being disinterested in the natural world, and yet it is I — not you — who defends the inherent meaning, beauty, and intelligibility of that world. You would have us believe the entire symphony of life was conducted by a deaf, drunk orchestra with no conductor, no sheet music, and no audience. You call that science. I call it the myth of the machine — a mechanistic cosmogony passed off as reason, but kept alive only by repression of the metaphysical and denial of the obvious.

And then, your mask slips completely: you reveal that what truly bothers you is not biology, but Catholicism. Not mutations, but Tradition. Your screed against 'Catholics like me' is the language of ideological control. You don't want truth — you want compliance. You want a domesticated religion, one that apologizes for its creeds and genuflects before your liberal sensibilities. That, sir, is not Christianity — it is cultural Marxism in a cassock.

Your final eh....blow — 'Nobody’s listening to you' — is not an argument, it is a marketing memo. You mistake popularity for truth, and consensus for authority. That’s the mindset of every regime that ever burned a heretic, banned a book, or silenced a dissenter. And you stand with them — not with the truth, but with the mob.

You’re not defending science. You’re defending the official mythology of the modern West — and like all state-approved myths, it cannot withstand real scrutiny. That’s why you resort to mockery instead of logic, derision instead of data. Because once the spell breaks, everyone can see the emperor has no genes.

I don't care Tiger. Nobody does.

I didn't read that, but I'm sorry that happened, or you feel that way.

 

[Tiger]

To be fair Sir creationists are extraordinarily stupid.

Oh look…another ‘enlightened’ evolutionist has wandered in from the pub to entertain us all with his wit.

Hands up anyone who thinks that Myles has ever read a book on evolution?

Nope, me either.


Only in the degenerate dialectic of the postmodern West could a man mistake his own ignorance for enlightenment and think that calling creationists 'extraordinarily stupid' is a substitute for an argument.

One is reminded of the medieval fool who, upon being handed a book, began mocking the ink because he couldn't read the letters.

To sort out the boys from the men in this discussion and show the reading audience who actually is ‘extraordinarily stupid’ here are 6 questions for Myles, Fishalt and anyone else who wants to chance their arm…

1 - Can you explain how random mutations create functional information within the genome without an external guiding mechanism — and how this process overcomes Shannon information entropy?”

2 - How do you account for the origin of epigenetic regulatory systems when their operation presupposes pre-existing cellular complexity?

3 - If DNA is a code, and codes require symbolic representation and a decoding mechanism, what is the origin of the semantic relationship between codons and amino acids?

4 - Could you outline the step-by-step chemical pathway from non-living matter to a self-replicating, information-bearing molecule — and address the problem of homochirality in that process?

5- Which came first: the ribosome, which is needed to make proteins, or the proteins required to build the ribosome?”

6 - How does unguided abiogenesis account for the irreducible interdependence between DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis systems — all of which require each other to exist?”

Myles, this is your chance to show us all that you are not ‘extraordinarily stupid’. Off you go…

 

[SwordOfStZip]

To be fair Sir creationists are extraordinarily stupid.

Look into Nelson McCausland's academic qualifications, they are very impressive to say the least- he may well be a savage and a bigot but stupid he is not and he is probably best known public advocate for Creationism in Ireland.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Myles, this is your chance to show us all that you are not ‘extraordinarily stupid’. Off you go…

The World is not a few thousand years old ye be Luder.

 

[Tiger]

The World is not a few thousand years old ye be Luder.

You answered a question that nobody asked.

That’s a little stupid.

How did you get on with the 6 questions that I asked?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Don't mind 6 questions. Just one: When were the Dinosaurs running around?

 

[Tiger]

I don't care Tiger. Nobody does.

I didn't read that, but I'm sorry that happened, or you feel that way.

Ah, the classic retreat — when reason fails, pretend apathy. A predictable maneuver from someone who declared certainty, demanded submission, and now, when pressed for substance, slinks behind a shrug.

You claimed 'nobody cares' — but clearly you did, enough to insult, sermonize, and sneer. And now, confronted with the full weight of the questions you can't answer, you default to the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. It’s not indifference — it’s defeat dressed in irony.

There was a time when atheists had arguments. Now they have memes, slogans, and this — the hollow chuckle of someone who thought bluster would carry him across the battlefield.

If you want to avoid ignominy you can attempt to answer these 6 questions which I asked your intellectual equal Myles and which your worldview hinges on...

1 - Can you explain how random mutations create functional information within the genome without an external guiding mechanism — and how this process overcomes Shannon information entropy?

2 - How do you account for the origin of epigenetic regulatory systems when their operation presupposes pre-existing cellular complexity?

3 - If DNA is a code, and codes require symbolic representation and a decoding mechanism, what is the origin of the semantic relationship between codons and amino acids?

4 - Could you outline the step-by-step chemical pathway from non-living matter to a self-replicating, information-bearing molecule — and address the problem of homochirality in that process?

5- Which came first: the ribosome, which is needed to make proteins, or the proteins required to build the ribosome?

6 - How does unguided abiogenesis account for the irreducible interdependence between DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis systems — all of which require each other to exist?

 

[Fishalt]

Ah, the classic retreat — when reason fails, pretend apathy. A predictable maneuver from someone who declared certainty, demanded submission, and now, when pressed for substance, slinks behind a shrug.

You claimed 'nobody cares' — but clearly you did, enough to insult, sermonize, and sneer. And now, confronted with the full weight of the questions you can't answer, you default to the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. It’s not indifference — it’s defeat dressed in irony.

There was a time when atheists had arguments. Now they have memes, slogans, and this — the hollow chuckle of someone who thought bluster would carry him across the battlefield.

If you want to avoid ignominy you can attempt to answer these 6 questions which I asked your intellectual equal Myles and which your worldview hinges on...

1 - Can you explain how random mutations create functional information within the genome without an external guiding mechanism — and how this process overcomes Shannon information entropy?

2 - How do you account for the origin of epigenetic regulatory systems when their operation presupposes pre-existing cellular complexity?

3 - If DNA is a code, and codes require symbolic representation and a decoding mechanism, what is the origin of the semantic relationship between codons and amino acids?

4 - Could you outline the step-by-step chemical pathway from non-living matter to a self-replicating, information-bearing molecule — and address the problem of homochirality in that process?

5- Which came first: the ribosome, which is needed to make proteins, or the proteins required to build the ribosome?

6 - How does unguided abiogenesis account for the irreducible interdependence between DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis systems — all of which require each other to exist?

 

[Tiger]

Don't mind 6 questions. Just one: When were the Dinosaurs running around?

Ah bless..

Asking about dinosaurs while ignoring the six foundational questions I gave you is like debating the colour of the drapes in a house whose foundation you can’t explain.

The timing of dinosaurs is irrelevant unless you understand how life began, how information arises from matter, and how blind mutations produce design. Until you can answer those, your question is little more than a fossilized diversion

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Bollocks. You're just afraid to answer because you'll be laughed at.

 

[Tiger]

View attachment 7463

Of course, you’re not reading it — we've reached the end game. Like when I exposed your and James’s paper-thin cosplay of 'nationalism' so thoroughly that your dignity had to be buried in an unmarked grave. If I recall, poor Fishy had to take a sabbatical just to recover. It’s understandable that you’re lurking here in safe, monosyllabic denial.

But don’t worry — the six questions remain, standing tall like headstones over the grave of your credibility. They await your return, or that of any brave member of your little sect, whenever the spirit of enlightenment moves you.

And as for this ‘I’m not reading all that’ routine — coming from a man in his 50s pretending to be an aloof TikTok teen — it’s not clever, it’s tragic. You’re not mocking me. You’re memorializing your own intellectual retreat.

 

[Fishalt]

Of course, you’re not reading it — we've reached the end game. Like when I exposed your and James’s paper-thin cosplay of 'nationalism' so thoroughly that your dignity had to be buried in an unmarked grave. If I recall, poor Fishy had to take a sabbatical just to recover. It’s understandable that you’re lurking here in safe, monosyllabic denial.

But don’t worry — the six questions remain, standing tall like headstones over the grave of your credibility. They await your return, or that of any brave member of your little sect, whenever the spirit of enlightenment moves you.

And as for this ‘I’m not reading all that’ routine — coming from a man in his 50s pretending to be an aloof TikTok teen — it’s not clever, it’s tragic. You’re not mocking me. You’re memorializing your own intellectual retreat.

^