Let's see...plural of dwarf is 'dwarves', Dr. Dimitri Veras is apparently employed by The only Department of Physics on the planet (actually it's University of Warwick Dept. of Physics but one wouldn't know that by the article), based on what we know about the life of stars there's 100% chance of Sol system experiencing a violent future.

Those stumblers aside, it's an interesting article.

Astronomers use 'dwarfs,' not 'dwarves.'

Is this research a meaningless grant magnet or am I incapable of understanding it's true significance?

Doom and gloom trash!

This is really exciting news. I can't wait!

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

wow, this is a dramatic article.

Is this research a meaningless grant magnet or am I incapable of understanding it's true significance?

It's nice to see someone else realizing that pure scientific discovery and the pursuit of truth are not the only things motivating Astronomers.

You may not agree, but I find all the effort to find planets around distant stars nothing but astronomers who've found a way to get paid to play 24/7 doing research that has no real world value, using technology that could have would have been developed for more useful purposes if we had been wise enough to say no when they first proposed such preposterous searches.

I think even astronomers knew the jig was going to end soon unless they found something believable, thus the discovery of a planet orbiting Proxima.

In today's breaking news, this will all eventually be gone.

Let's see...plural of dwarf is 'dwarves'

It's one of those words that have different plural depending on meaning.
You know, like fish/fish, and fish/fishes.

So we are spending billions in tax payers money for something that will happen billions of years from now? Since our Gov't has so much money to throw away, why not give some towards education. Maybe expanding science in every school. And school lunches for every student in America.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This could be a serious scientific article if only it could have a few less coulds.

Man was never useful. Technology is never useful. To have a use one must have a purpose, and to my eyes, there seems to be no purpose whatsoever to life. It is just experience for the sake of experience.

to my eyes, there seems to be no purpose whatsoever to life. It is just experience for the sake of experience.

This is a very profound statement.
Does this arise from your belief in the big bang, billions of years, self-generation of stars and planets, spontaneous generation of life and Darwinian evolution?
In that scenario, there is truly no meaning to life, it's just a bad accident, it's all purposeless and inconsequential.
On the other hand, if you believe in an all-wise, loving and kind God who created everything - and there's ample evidence for such a belief - then your life immediately assumes a major meaning and purpose. You are here created in the image of the Creator to populate the earth, multiply and subdue it. Pity about the sinful state we've fallen into. But, thanks be to the Creator - who gave us a way out of our dilemma.
So anyone and everyone has the same choice to make - believe in the age of rocks or believe in the Rock of Ages.

"Man was never useful. Technology is never useful. To have a use one must have a purpose, and to my eyes, there seems to be no purpose whatsoever to life. It is just experience for the sake of experience."

That is why most cultures believe in a God. Whether God exists or not is immaterial, man needs to believe in something other than himself in order to have meaning.

to my eyes, there seems to be no purpose whatsoever to life. It is just experience for the sake of experience.

This is a very profound statement.

Actually, it's completely inane and demonstrates meaningless only in its own meaninglessness. Meta as hell but hardly profound. And since he was motivated to use technology to make the point he obviously doesn't believe it either. Otherwise, why bother?

On the other hand, if you believe in an all-wise, loving and kind God who created everything ...- believe in the age of rocks or believe in the Rock of Ages.

So you're saying everything has meaning only if you decide it has meaning. Ok. So why do you need to make up an imaginary friend to do it? The universe has meaning because I give it meaning. I don't need to invent invisible forces to give it that. It's amazing enough as it really is

"Man was never useful. Technology is never useful. To have a use one must have a purpose, and to my eyes, there seems to be no purpose whatsoever to life. It is just experience for the sake of experience."

That is why most cultures believe in a God. Whether God exists or not is immaterial, man needs to believe in something other than himself in order to have meaning.

...........Global Warming. Black Holes (pity Hawking). Dark Matter. 2+2= ∞ ..............or just make it up as you go along, that's all we've ever
been doing anyway.

"...When the sun starts to die in around seven billion years, it will blow away half of its own mass and inflate itself—swallowing the Earth—
...
However, Dr. Veras has discovered that the existence of Planet Nine could rewrite this happy ending.
..."

This is a "happy" ending ?

Does this arise from your belief in the big bang, billions of years, self-generation of stars and planets, spontaneous generation of life and Darwinian evolution?

the above words "belief in the..." are the wrong words here and should be replaced with "believe the scientific facts of..."

In that scenario, there is truly no meaning to life, it's just a bad accident, it's all purposeless and inconsequential.
On the other hand, if you believe in an all-wise, loving and kind God who created everything - and there's ample evidence for such a belief - then your life immediately assumes a major meaning and purpose.

In other words, belief in God is a false belief for the sake of making some emotionally weak people deal with hard reality by escaping hard reality with happy wild delusional belief. Fortunately, many of us learn to be strong and withstand hard reality without such wild delusions. I recommend learning emotional strength over delusional belief.

In other words, belief in God is a false belief for the sake of making some emotionally weak people deal with hard reality by escaping hard reality with happy wild delusional belief.

Well, he does say there is "ample evidence" for a god. However, I have yet to see him - or anyone else - provide any (let alone 'ample').

Double post

@humy

Does this arise from your belief in the big bang, billions of years, self-generation of stars and planets, spontaneous generation of life and Darwinian evolution?

the above words "belief in the..." are the wrong words here and should be replaced with "believe the scientific facts of..."

With the exception of Darwinian evolution where we do have the ability to replicate, due to the time span needed to prove most of the above references, the scientific facts we so strongly believe are in reality no more than conjecture based on insufficient observation, imagination, and mathematical modeling.

A conclusion that is based on one or more assumptions is not a fact, it is a conjecture.

The fact that all life is based on DNA coding is proof of a code writer. Code does not write itself. Even if life began as a single cell entity in some primordial chemical soup it had to have the genetic information coded into its DNA that was necessary to create all of the life forms that are supposed to have evolved from it. It makes just as much sense to call the code writer God as anything else. I>

So anyone and everyone has the same choice to make - believe in the age of rocks or believe in the Rock of Ages.

I like knowing how old rocks might be...
The Rock of Ages?
Led Zepp, definitely.

In other words, belief in God is a false belief for the sake of making some emotionally weak people deal with hard reality by escaping hard reality with happy wild delusional belief. Fortunately, many of us learn to be strong and withstand hard reality without such wild delusions. I recommend learning emotional strength over delusional belief.

Well said.

In other words, belief in God is a false belief for the sake of making some emotionally weak people deal with hard reality by escaping hard reality with happy wild delusional belief. Fortunately, many of us learn to be strong and withstand hard reality without such wild delusions.

Well said.

Unfortunately, to establish proof of much of that hard reality we must rely on imaginary numbers.

Unfortunately, to establish proof of much of that hard reality we must rely on consensus.

Unfortunately, to establish proof of much of that hard reality we must rely on illusory correlation.

Unfortunately, to establish proof of much of that hard reality we must rely on insufficient data.

Unfortunately, to establish proof of much of that hard reality we must rely on trends.

Or alternatively, we can just make shit up with no data, correlation, consensus or numbers at all. Sounds like fun

Unfortunately, to establish proof of much of that hard reality we must rely on peer review.

Unfortunately, to establish proof of much of that hard reality we must rely on data smoothing.

Or alternatively, we can just make shit up with no data, correlation, consensus or numbers at all. Sounds like fun

It's not "alternatively." That is exactly what some (not all) of today's "science" has descended to.

With the exception of Darwinian evolution where we do have the ability to replicate, due to the time span

...which we don't need to replicate as we have scientific proof of evolution without replication just as we have proof that stars exist without replicating stars. Not all scientific facts need replication. You clearly don't understand how science works but, go on...

the scientific facts we so strongly believe are in reality no more than conjecture based on insufficient observation, imagination, and mathematical modeling.

If that is the case then none of our technology that depends on those scientific facts being valid would work and yet you are able to post this over the net with your computer with transistors that use semiconductors that wouldn't work if quantum physics was just merely "in reality no more than conjecture based on insufficient observation, imagination, and mathematical modeling". How do you explain that contradiction?

If that is the case then none of our technology that depends on those scientific facts being valid would work

We don't have to understand the science create technology. The science comes from trying to understand. Cavemen were able to make tools chipping at certain stones without knowing why those stones made tools and other stones did not. More recently, we were able to build electric generators, distribution systems, batteries, and motors without understanding electricity. We didn't know why it worked but we could utilize and improve the technology.

Astronomers use 'dwarfs,' not 'dwarves.'

Their Mummys also read them fairy tales like "Snow white and the Seven exhausted low mass stars" when they were little.

You people sound like a bunch of silly children. The fool that can't see ample evidence of a Creator must live in a dark cave. Slither out into the light and just look around and if you are not blinded by your apparent ignorance you will see more than ample evidence of God.. The belief that life just sprang spontainously out of non life requires much more faith than than it does to believe in a creator with superior intelligence. The ultra complex DNA coding necessary to create even the simplest life form requires a mind so superior to man's that there is no comparison. Even the simplest code requires a code writer.

The belief that life just sprang spontainously out of non life requires much more faith

No, it requires understanding and proof.

than than it does to believe in a creator with superior intelligence.

Does the Bible in Genesis 2:7 not say that God formed man of the dust of the ground? That would be life from non life. Blind faith requires no proof.

Even the simplest code requires a code writer.

Code writers have to come from somewhere too.

What does the bible have to do with it? Are you so blind and arrogant that you can't see or acknowledge that life requires a life giver. Your genetic coding made your life a possibility but the odds against your particular code ever coming up on the Roulette wheel of life were astronomical. Your genetic coding was passed down to you by over a billion ancestors in only thirty generations. Your genetic coding is your SPIRIT and it is so unique that the possibility of it ever being written into another being 's DNA are as close to zero as possiable. The odds that allowed you win were determined by chance and happenstance but the possibility of you ever becoming you was designed by the Master Designers/Programmers. That is not some religious belief, it is a plainly observable fact. Like it or not you are a biological robot. No fool knows whether, or not, the Creator can recreate a genetic copy of you or me. Our genetic coding may be as immortal as Hilliary's bad emails but we arn't.

We don't have to understand the science create technology.

I don't understand that latter part of that sentence at all. Misedit?

The science comes from trying to understand.

Not exactly; science comes from applying scientific method. This would involve 'trying' but mere 'trying' to understand won't do if you define 'trying' as giving a superstitious or baseless or illogical explanation.

Cavemen were able to make tools chipping at certain stones without knowing why those stones made tools and other stones did not.

What are you talking about? Which kind of stones cannot make tools without cavemen knowing why? Give an example...

More recently, we were able to build electric generators, distribution systems, batteries, and motors without understanding electricity.

Wrong; We (scientists) understanding electricity just fine and we know what it is. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean we don't.

Are you so blind and arrogant that ...

You speak of our 'arrogance' and display arrogance in the same breath;
To think we are so special that our origins are from a powerful god that is so powerful as to made the whole entire universe and who is interested in our affairs and we are in the image of such a powerful god, is extreme arrogance.
To think we are nothing special and our origins are from nothing more melodramatic than a smelly ugly hairy ape is certainly anything but arrogance.

PS: Sorry to have drifted off subject. Many people believe that they will be around seven billion years from now to find out if the kooky sounding Dr Dimitri Vera's predictions about planet nine is correct. Seven billion years is a blink in time to when compared with eternity.

Sounds like I hit a sore spot. To debate with a fool is to become one so I'll leave this thread others th hash out. Good bye.

Sounds like I hit a sore spot. To debate with a fool is to become one so I'll leave this thread others th hash out. Good bye.

so no intelligent counterargument nor humbly and honestly admitting when you are wrong?
Just unintelligent condescending insults to those that prove you wrong?
As Phys1 said then; Thanks and don't come back !

Wait, the solar system will be destroyed by planet 9 after the sun dies? I hate to burst your bubble, but when the sun dies, THAT is the end of the solar system. The inner planets will become cinders, the outer gas giants may be lost as gravity decreases and so on. The solar system ends when the "solar" part is gone. Plant 9, if it exists, will just drift away into space. All of that is irrelevant to us, because the human race will have been gone for eons by then.

The science comes from trying to understand.

Not exactly; science comes from applying scientific method. This would involve 'trying' but mere 'trying' to understand won't do if you define 'trying' as giving a superstitious or baseless or illogical explanation.

Trying to understand forms a hypothesis which may lead to further experimentation or it may lead to superstition.

Cavemen were able to make tools chipping at certain stones without knowing why those stones made tools and other stones did not.

What are you talking about? Which kind of stones cannot make tools without cavemen knowing why?

Do a search on 'knapping.'

More recently, we were able to build electric generators, distribution systems, batteries, and motors without understanding electricity.

Wrong; We (scientists) understanding electricity just fine and we know what it is. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean we don't.

During the nineteenth and early twentieth century scientists studying electricity were the proverbial blind men with the elephant. They were able to create, measure, and utilize electricity, but it took understanding of atomic structure to explain how it all fit together.

We may have a better understanding now but we still don't know all about electricity. Search superconductivity, photovoltaics, battery, etc. New discoveries are announced almost every day.

We may have a better understanding now but we still don't know all about electricity. Search superconductivity, photovoltaics, battery, etc. New discoveries are announced almost every day.

That is garbage, dusty.
I just searched "etc." and found "About 2.780.000.000 results (0,42 seconds) ".
Give me some time to go through these.
A lot is known about "etc." !

A serious reaction to your post is not possible.

Why is this garbage? If we know all there is to know about electricity, why do we spend so much time and money on research to find room temperature superconductivity, more efficient photovoltaics, and better batteries?

So you're saying that in 7 billion years.. Solar system will be doomed? Doooooomed! :D

dustywells writes

.. why do we spend so much time and money on research to find room temperature superconductivity, more efficient photovoltaics, and better batteries?

By analogy (for which some people are far more comfortable than the underlying maths Eg Maxwell & Schrodinger), you'reconfusing excellent detailed understanding of water & its molecular structures with the topology of the channels/pipe etc through which it can flow or is forced to flow including eddies & secondary effects of the huge variants in strata types etc

Continuing the analogy to make it crystal clear, Eg batteries

Designing water storage with all ther structural/material/corrosion requirements & pumping is
very different than knowing how water travels through some pipes.

Similar analogies applicable Eg
Super conductivity - ensuring eddies nonexistent within infrastructure oscillates in multiple modes
Photovoltaics - trapping water at highest pressure so its useful to deliver power

Ensign, it will if you happen to be a delusional psycho

Man was never useful. Technology is never useful. To have a use one must have a purpose, and to my eyes, there seems to be no purpose whatsoever to life. It is just experience for the sake of experience.

Only delusional religious belief systems require "Purpose". Your post has zero value or meaning, other than speaking to your own personal confusion/delusion.

Does this arise from your belief in the big bang, billions of years, self-generation of stars and planets, spontaneous generation of life and Darwinian evolution?

the above words "belief in the..." are the wrong words here and should be replaced with "believe the scientific facts of..."

Humy, I disagree - we don't "believe in the scientific facts of....." we observe and/or recognize these scientific facts. Belief indicates the reaching of and embracing of conclusions based on a leap of "faith", or simply "seeing the truth" in something absent the attributes that cause the non-delusional (mentally healthy?) to observe and/or recognize something.

Do a search on 'knapping.'

what about it? relevance?

During the nineteenth and early twentieth century scientists studying electricity were ...

we are not currently in the nineteenth and early twentieth century and right now we understand electricity just fine even if you don't. No superstition required.

We may have a better understanding now but we still don't know all about electricity. Search superconductivity, photovoltaics, battery, etc

Why? what has any of those things got to understanding what electricity is? To understand what electricity is requires knowing that it involves the movement of charged particles and knowing current, voltage etc is.
Superconductivity, photovoltaics, battery etc require more specialized understanding of how electricity would BEHAVE in certain materials as opposed to what it IS, and the fact we know what it is still remains. You clearly have complete ignorance of even the basic science.

I find this forum very disappointing. I had hoped fo find open minded adults with something worthwhile to present, not silly bickering children with no apparent wisdom, showing little understanding of anything. Most of the commentaries are sophomoric and about as mentally stimulating as watching the big hand on a clock move.

Where do you get off telling me goodby and don't come back. The only thing that you are running is your mouth.

I find this forum very disappointing. I had hoped fo find open minded adults with something worthwhile to present, not silly bickering children with no apparent wisdom, showing little understanding of anything. Most of the commentaries are sophomoric and about as mentally stimulating as watching the big hand on a clock move.

Ironically I completely agree with you. It's ironic because I think you're a tad deluded about what side of that equation you sit on. This is supposed to be a science site for people to discuss science articles. I'm not sure what inane ramblings about creationism have to do with that. And in case that seems like an invitation for you to try to explain it - it isn't.

Then again, I have no idea why half the posters trawl the site for climate science articles just so they can yell "no it's not!" at it. So maybe it's me that's deluded.

Ǽon claimed

.. all life is based on DNA coding is proof of a code writer

Not necessarily, applying mere human attributes self centered, appreciate
https://en.wikipe...lgorithm

Ǽon wrote

Code does not write itself

No it can, genetic algorithms demonstrable:- https://en.wikipe...hardware

Ǽon wrote

.. had to have the genetic information coded into its DNA..

Method ? easiest permutative via environment selection, easily done from common stuff
1. Early earth atmosphere; H2O, N2, CO2, H2
2. Heat gets NH3
3. More heat gets Formamide, then produces Guanine = DNA base
4. Others by permutations over long periods with electrical energy input

ie Life = amino acid permutations, all has ammonia

Ǽon wrote

.. sense to call the code writer God..

Nah, adds ugly overtones, "god" proven to be a bad & impotent communicator, far more likely = uncaring experimenter observing patterns over many millennia !

If some genius puts all the ingredients together to create a living organism at
some distant future date it will only prove the necessity for a creator. At least
your ideas are a refreshing departure from the childish dribble that others
have presented. Someone made the astute observation that the chances that a life
form like a horse evolved from a chemical soup are about the same as if aluminum,
and rivets and other elements got together to spontainously form a 737 that flies
of on its on volition and is capable to reproduce other 747's. A 747 with all its
wonderful design is nowhere as complex as a "simple" amoeba.

�Ľon says

.. create a living organism at some distant future date it will only prove the necessity for a creator

No, over-simplifying & a strawman facile paradigm, not helpful to anyone, did you read links I offered & understand the far larger implication & just *why* combinatorially, genetic algorithms - with increased computing resources will ultimately exceed human design capacity ?

�Ľon says

.. astute observation that the chances that a life form like a horse evolved from a chemical soup are about the same as ...

No, not astute at all ! The maths & time *completely* is different !

Eg. Electronics has primitives ie Resistor, capacitor, inductor etc. Genetic algorithm written with "selection criteria" generated a notch filter on millions of iterations, outcome a circuit works better than *any* other; difficult to understand appeared intelligently designed.

Same with amino acid primitives but, times Trillions of planets & Billions of years !

You present a mind game that sounds deceptively like the infinite monkey classic. Who wrote the algorithm with "selection criteria" you alluded to? Maybe it was those damn pesky monkeys on their cosmic typewriters.

I carved a rock. And then I realised that every rock in the world required a carver. That's just logic!!!!!!

�Ľon claimed

... mind game that sounds deceptively like the infinite monkey classic

No. Genetic algorithms well proven, produce outcomes beyond even the most sophisticated traditional design approaches. Along with other links please review
https://en.wikipe...ications

�Ľon with a fair question

Who wrote the algorithm with "selection criteria" you alluded to?

Software programmers exploiting simple math who incidentally; didnt know what form the outcome would take & had no knowledge of the primitives properties. They also had nil reason to communicate with anything the program created.

�Ľon satire oversimplifying

Maybe it was those damn pesky monkeys on their cosmic typewriters

Doubt it, that facile strawman like paradigm has so many things wrong & isn't how the world works, Eg Quantum mechanics shown simple binary relations generate immense complexity built in, imagine Trillions of planets etc

x

If some genius puts all the ingredients together to create a living organism at
some distant future date it will only prove the necessity for a creator. ...

Nope; it would only prove you don't need a god/gods/fairies/magic to create life.

Before understanding of the law of refraction, many people assumed rainbows where created by a god.
Then Newton discovered refraction and then later someone made an artificial rainbow using that knowledge.
With your same 'logic', that someone making an artificial rainbow 'proves' "the necessity for a creator", by that you imply a 'god', to make a rainbow. And yet in this modern day of science and reason we know natural rainbows are not made from god or gods or the tooth fairy but are a result of natural, not supernatural, law (law of refraction in this case).
Sorry! You cannot prove Goddidit!

You can, without the slightest effort of thought, easily explain anything away with a god or magic or the supernatural.
But, for a real explanation, you must do a lot better than that.
Real explanations requires real thinking.

When one does not know, it is stupid to explain it away with a god. Much more intelligent and honest to just humbly admit ignorance. Or, better still, seek a rational scientific explanation.

Mike's use of the word strawman makes me doubt he understands the meaning of the word. I find that most of the arguments against my posts are just that. Rather than intelligently considering what is actually said and making a rational argument against it, strawmam statements are introduced to answer questions that were never presented. The use of words like quantum mechanics in no way means that you have the slightest notion of what you are talking about. Throwing technical terms around is no indication of your intelligence only your vocabulary. Humy's discourse about rainbows is a perfect example of a strawman attempt to discredit the meaning of my posts with irevelant drivel. What the hell do rainbows have to do with DNA or programming or a programmer? Understanding that a greater intelligence exists only requires the study of the world around you with an open mind. Makes me wonder why you seem so pissed off at the notion that an intelligence far superior to your own exists.

On ignore. Anyone who can earnestly and without irony go on a science site and say that you don't need proof for something because it's "just self-evident" isn't worth engaging.

Two more great examples of meaningless and childlike strawman statements from small closed minds. There is nothing scientific in saying "God is not" its only a display of your small minded ignorance. You say "God is not" but offer no proof of such a silly statement. Then you want you have the gall to call that science...give me a break fool.

Post totals so far...

Dark_Solar: posts=1; 1.8 / 5 (9)
Sonhouse: posts=3; 4.5 / 5 (30)
barakn: posts=1; 4.3 / 5 (12)
MR166: posts=2; 2.8 / 5 (13)
rwooten: posts=1; 3.5 / 5 (8)
NIPSZX: posts=1; 2.7 / 5 (7)
BendBob: posts=1; 3.7 / 5 (6)
tinitus: posts=2; 3 / 5 (18)
matt_s: posts=1; 3 / 5 (2)
Jonseer: posts=2; 1.7 / 5 (9)
leetennant: posts=6; 3.5 / 5 (22)
EnsignFlandry: posts=2; 4.8 / 5 (13)
gkam: posts=1; 3.2 / 5 (13)
JongDan: posts=1; 4.5 / 5 (2)
Iampeace: posts=1; 1.4 / 5 (8)
dustywells: posts=15; 1.1 / 5 (49)
Stevepidge: posts=1; 1 / 5 (2)
FredJose: posts=1; 1.3 / 5 (14)
Benni: posts=1; 1.3 / 5 (4)
humy: posts=9; 3.8 / 5 (18)
antialias_physorg: posts=2; 2.5 / 5 (7)
Ǽon: posts=11; 1.1 / 5 (35)
Whydening Gyre: posts=2; 3.8 / 5 (7)
TransmissionDump: posts=1; 2 / 5 (4)
Phys1: posts=6; 4.2 / 5 (13)
ellbeeyoo: posts=1; 3 / 5 (2)
NeutronicallyRepulsive: posts=1; 3 / 5 (2)
Mike_Massen: posts=4; 1.5 / 5 (5)
Zzzzzzzz: posts=3; 3.3 / 5 (2)

508on (his exact name doesn't edit here) just said;

Humy's discourse about rainbows is a perfect example of a strawman attempt to discredit the meaning of my posts .

Your ( 508on ) own previous exact words were;

If some genius puts all the ingredients together to create a living organism at
some distant future date it will only prove the necessity for a creator

Which I took as meaning the inference that a genius putting all the ingredients together to create a living organism would
prove only an intelligent creator (perhaps a 'god'? ) can create the very first life.

Exactly how is this a strawman? That IS what you meant, right?
If so, In what way have I misrepresented your meaning? Look up the definition of strawman and come back to us.
If not, explain to us the meaning you meant that is contrary to my above interpretation ....

508on then said;

What the hell do rainbows have to do with DNA or programming or a programmer?

Your own exact words were;

If some genius puts all the ingredients together to create a living organism at
some distant future date it will only prove the necessity for a creator

my response;

Before understanding of the law of refraction, many people assumed rainbows where created by a god.
Then Newton discovered refraction and then later someone made an artificial rainbow using that knowledge.
With your same 'logic', that someone making an artificial rainbow 'proves' "the necessity for a creator", by that you imply a 'god', to make a rainbow. And yet in this modern day of science and reason we know natural rainbows are not made from god or gods ... but are a result of natural, not supernatural, law (law of refraction in this case).

So using your same 'logic' applied to rainbows would lead to an absurd conclusion. Comprehend?

What the tiny but very load minority of crazed and apparently hysterical theists (who are certainly NOT representative of the vast majority of theists, at least the ones that I know of, that are generally a LOT more rational I think) don't seem to get is that if there is just one example of an application of their (or anyone else's) 'logic' that leads to an absurd and obviously false conclusion then that proves their 'logic' is invalid.

And then when one of us points out an example where their same 'logic' leads to an absurd and obviously false conclusion, they respond with shouting out either 'strawman' or 'irrelevant' because they were not using that 'logic' for that other application you just said! -which, obviously, is completely missing the point which is that other application of that 'logic' gives an absurd conclusion that proves that 'logic' invalid for the application they DID use it for!

Ǽon says

Mike's use of the word strawman makes me doubt he understands the meaning

Please learn Provenance re paradigm wider than you appreciate Eg
https://en.wikipe..._fallacy

Ǽon claims

..intelligently considering what is actually said and making a rational argument against it

Links posted, did u read ? then refute scenario, consider intent Y any god of universe, needs to chat with favorites

Ǽon says

strawmam statements are introduced to answer questions that were never presented

As in your monkeys ?

Ǽon states

Understanding that a greater intelligence exists only requires the study of the world around you..

Show u are open to notion a skilled alien being as a universe-programmer set up discontinuous elements to experiment & pressed Run, paradigm fits perfectly with QM = probabilistic

Tech terms r stock in trade, multiple (4) uni qualifications http://curtin.edu.au my no. 7602128 please check ?

Lol

�Ľon claims

You say "God is not" but offer no proof of such a silly statement

Please learn a key aspect within the discipline of Science. Extra-ordinary claims demand extra-ordinary evidence & I add - evidence in line with hypothesis for which math has descriptive aspect.

Religion; arbitrary belief upon idle hope but, Science; "The discipline of the acquisition of knowledge"

Religious adoption sadly show primitive humans more manipulable/susceptible to hypnosis than imagined Eg
https://www.youtu...TUdmuOeg

�Ľon claims

.. the gall to call that science...give me a break fool

Name calling proves you've lost it :-(

U clearly haven't understood links, nor have cognition of very deep hole religion (re personal god) dug itself. Primarily a static dependent on emotional attachment without discipline ie facile claim.

Religions & their adherents plainly put:- Cannot progress as they are stranded/stuck or show otherwise ?

Yah think ;-)

Does your mommy and daddy know that you are playing on the computer again?

It's not just an obvious lack of understanding and ignorance, it's the BELIEF that there is no God that brands someone a fool. It's necessary to scientifically show proof, not just the misguided FAITH that there is no God, to be credible. No BELIEF, FAITH OR RELIGION whatsoever is necessary to understand the fact that a higher intelligence exists. All that's required is an open mind and INTELLIGENT OBSERVATION of the world around you.

... It's necessary to scientifically show proof, not just the misguided FAITH that there is no God, to be credible. No BELIEF, FAITH OR RELIGION whatsoever is necessary to understand the fact that a higher intelligence exists. All that's required is an open mind and INTELLIGENT OBSERVATION of the world around you.

Where is this proof that there exists a god that you claim makes there being a god a 'fact'? Show us please....
The proof that YOUR God doesn't exist (not necessarily some other kind of god or gods) is the proof of evolution and the Earth being very old so to allow evolution. But I guess you don't have the open mind and intelligent observations of the world around you to see it.

Explain how eveloution disproves the existence of a higher intelligence. The first "WHATEVER" had to contain all of the genetic information programmed into it that was necessary to produce the myriad of life forms that supposedly evolved from it. To believe that this ultra complex genetic programming "just happened" takes much more FAITH than simply accepting that a superior mind wrote it. To try to insulate your hypotheses with billions of years of time is a cop out. Your FAITH in blind chance and happenstance incomprehensable.

Explain how evolution disproves the existence of a higher intelligence.

It doesn't and I never implied nor did I ever think it does (I assume you are talking to me? ). It just disproves YOUR god since YOUR god, not necessarily some other kind of god, apparently (judging purely by your words) requires evolution to be false.
I just said:in my last post;

"...The proof that YOUR God doesn't exist (not necessarily some other kind of god or gods) is the proof of evolution and the Earth being very old so to allow evolution.
..."

And note the operative words "(not necessarily some other kind of god or gods)" above there that imply I mean evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god that is such that it doesn't require evolution to be false for that god to possibly exist;
-a pretty obvious point really.
.
I don't rule out the possibility of there being A god; I just think it extremely improbable given the absence of evidence.

There is no question that all life forms with the exception of tube worms that live near black smokers deep in the ocean contain the same DNA and RNA. This indicates a common ancestor or a common designer or both. The complexity of the genetic information contained in even the "simplest" organism indicates that it is much more likely than not to be the result of a intelligent design. I personally don't give a big rats ass whether someone believes that there is a higher intelligence or not. I'm no do gooder, so it's no skin off my heel one way or the other.

There is no question that all life forms with the exception of tube worms that live near black smokers deep in the ocean contain the same DNA and RNA. This indicates a common ancestor ...

correct. Which means evolution happened.
So you don't deny evolution? That would be a start.

...or a common designer ...

If what you mean by 'designer' is something with mind (a 'god'?) or Unless you can validly say in our language evolution is a 'mindlessly designer', wrong.
How would you explain common ancestry without evolution? How did all those changes take place over millions of years without evolution? Goddidit? If Goddidit, why did he design life in such an arbitrary and seemingly idiotic incremental way instead of designing each species from scratch thus without common ancestry?
If evolution is responsible for those changes, were does this 'designer' (god) fit into the explanation and why would this designer' (god) be a necessary part of the explanation?

You are a simi-autonomous robot. Most of your brain (computer) is used to control the operation of your various separate organs and parts of your body that work automatically, without the entity that you call yourself's control. That's not a put down, it's just an honest acceptance of our temporary nature. An intelligent being or beings or intelligent nature designed the process that simi-automatically produced you. I say simi-automatically because each couple of your ancestors had to meet by chance have sex at the right instant by chance and one out of millions of sperm had to fertilize the egg that nine months later became you. Pretty amazing, even when you take it only that far back. This well worn biological unit is continually amazed at the limitless diversity but lack of understanding in units of my type. THE FACT IS LIFE ONLY COMES FROM LIFE. That's not conjecture or require faith or religious belief it's just a scientific fact whether it's a grain of wheat or an elephant.

�Ľon claim[q .. FACT IS LIFE ONLY COMES FROM LIF No, isn't a contingent causality Eg my post Sep 6, 2016, its clear programmers (that don't *have to be* intelligent) ie Needn't have *any* knowledge of (electronic) components at all, Eg filter executed by genetic algorithm & also need *not* have to wait for any particular outcome as if they ever needed to ever press "Stop".

Inform us �Ľon; what if anything is erroneous with such paradigm (even a little) & clear by experimental method its evidentiary

ie Programmer needn't have *any* component knowledge *or* need to settle on *any* outcome, ie Static vs Dynamic = evolution always !

�Ľon you claimed an intelligence of "cause" ok fine, then surely an implacable fact attributes of any intelligence are betrayed by its creation - especially so if you accept claim (even minor) that "we are made in its image" ?

Perhaps such a nebulous alien/god student labtech does "love bacteria" but, merely watches all

Even the most rabid eveloutionests KNOW that life had a beginning. As I have pointed outso many times, that the 1st whateveritwas, that evolutionists speculate spontainously sprang from non life, had to contain THE GENETIC PROGRAMMING CODE that the subsequent millions of life forms that came after it needed to become whatever they are. The chances of that happening are near infinite. Using a binary system (male and female) along with chance and happenstance the creators assured that there would be limitless programming diversity in all life forms. It takes FAITH to BELIEVE that life just happened without intelligent direction, there is certainly NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF. There may be a day when we can turn a frog into a dog but it won't happen without intelligent manipulation any more than original life happened without intelligent manipulation. People will only hear what they agree with but QM, Algorithms and math formulas are useful in understanding reality but are abstracts.

My Phsy.org nickname is Aeon, so nicknamed because I dubbed of the individual grains that make up the ever moving dynamic ether "AEons" and coined the phrase "The Dynamic Ether". AEons are particles millions of times smaller than an electron that are the cause and effect of the universe. Individual AEons are in constant motion in some direction at the speed of light. Everything is composed or AEons each moving in some direction at any instant. AEons cannot be made to exceed the speed of light. When a body is accelerated in some direction the AEons that are already moving in that direction at the speed of light resist being forced to exceed the speed of light. The result is inertia. I tossed thes tidbit in to liven up the discourse

humy

We don't have to understand the science create technology.

I don't understand that latter part of that sentence at all. Misedit?

The science comes from trying to understand.

Not exactly; science comes from applying scientific method. This would involve 'trying' but mere 'trying' to understand won't do if you define 'trying' as giving a superstitious or baseless or illogical explanation.

Cavemen were able to make tools chipping at certain stones without knowing why those stones made tools and other stones did not.

What are you talking about?

It appears that where I see technology as the development and application of skills using available resources, you see technology as a science in itself. I will have to consider that distinction.

The point I was trying to make is that our ancestors didn't need to know why a stone chipped in a certain way to produce a sharp edge or why a log floats to learn to build a raft.

...each couple of your ancestors had to meet by chance have sex at the right instant by chance ...

What are you going on about? No, because of something called sexual attraction via instict, they didn't have to meet by pure 'chance' and there is no 'right' instant i.e. 'right' moment in time to have sex.
If they had sex at some other instant, people like us would still come to exist and will still exist today.

THE FACT IS LIFE ONLY COMES FROM LIFE

This isn't a 'fact'. Simply shouting it out doesn't make it a true. You need to show proof, which you so far haven't, to validly say something is a 'fact'.

Even the most rabid eveloutionests KNOW that life had a beginning.

Nobody I am aware of including scientists say that life has no beginning.

The point I was trying to make is that our ancestors didn't need to know why a stone chipped in a certain way to produce a sharp edge or why a log floats to learn to build a raft.

But modern people DO need to and DO know quantum physics to design, say, a new and better transistor.
And they DO need to know and DO know many of the sciences to know how to make virtually all our modern technology.
Unlike a caveman making a stone tool, it is unlikely if not completely impossible to, say, design a space satellite from nothing more than what your father once told you or showed you and from blind trail and error without any understanding of the relevant physics of the real physical world.
I think to imply that these scientists that help design these things have no understanding of anything in the real world is pretty absurd. You, generally, wouldn't even be ALLOWED to even TRY and design anything much unless you can first prove you understand the relevant physics..

Ǽon Doh...

.. life had a beginning

Yes easier than thought, simple chemistry that sits atop physics that sits atop two predicates
1 Everything moves all the time
2 All atoms based on sub-atomic particles (SAP) absorb/radiate light re any energy differences

Both under most successful theory of *all* time = Quantum Mechanics (QM). Eg *All* atomic/chemical interactions & semiconductors rely fully & completely on QM as descriptive & predictive ie Foundational !

The prejudicial view re you & uneducated claim QM abstract, is fully refuted by direct practical application re immense predictive power & by extrapolation implies space-time only emergent.

Obvious Q arises; Where did SAP in spatial environment arise ?

Nobody knows & doesn't matter as clearly all claims of a personal god (who plays favourites)
can't be valid due to overwhelming proven impotence - even motivation for any god to communicate,
confirms merely claim

Pls see my last post para 3

TBC

Cont @ Ǽon

Q is how to arrive at best most definitive knowledge of the nature of source of SAP
& obviously the most intelligent approach which recognises human's immense proclivity to;

1. Exaggerate, influence, cheat, take advantage of others for power & authority, exploit feeble intellects & meek emotions, play games & just plain "Try it on" throughout the millennia then
one must address a foundational question:-

A. Is undisciplined (competitive) belief of any old books more reliable than serious disciplined approach Eg Experiment ?

& related question;

B. Is there indication we can understand scale/complexity of any Intelligent Designer (ID) ostensibly that created SAP any more than a lab-tech testing bacterial survival ?

It should be noted we aren't in the dark Eg Nature so we have a corollary question;

C. Is there definitive evidence key attributes of the ID re SAP source - at whatever intelligence can be known ?

See para 3 my post Sep 9, 2016

TBC

Cont @ �Ľon

Its patently obvious answers to the questions in my last post ie A through to C are knowable !

ie Not a Godellian or maths paradigm which you can't determine if answers obtainable.

Eg as in math formulas ie a series - we have calculus/limits which has proven immensely successful so yes there are means of anaylsis to determine if a formula has solutions before even trying to evaluate it.

Perhaps a more enlightened approach - rather than jumping in with simplistic attempts to try to
answer Q's A through C on any superficial level (& without mere claim), is instead ask follow up
Q's which can further converge on the predicates upon which A through C are built ?

IOW: Instead of replacing A through C - are there related &/or other questions say D onwards that
can shed key some light upon the semantic/linguistic base to arrive at a step "up the ladder" so to speak, such that answers on A through C can be determined, even at first asymptotically ?

As I have pointed outso many times, that the 1st whateveritwas, that evolutionists speculate spontainously sprang from non life, had to contain THE GENETIC PROGRAMMING CODE

You don't get it. The "1st whateveritwas" evolved from a very slightly less complex "1st whateveritwas".. which evolved from a slightly less complex "1st whateveritwas"... etc. Keep tracing these proto "1st whateveritwas" back until you're left with basic proteins. Oh look, your problem with the whole concept just went away. You're just not applying the process enough, and not thinking through it logically. You're adding in some arbitrary step where life sprang from non-life, with the specific goal of using that arbitrary distinction to inject some "creator" into the process.

In case you still don't get it, what if there is no clear distinction between life and non life? What if you're just not applying the concept evolution enough?

Mat_s, you apparently have more faith than Abraham to believe in the nonsense that you espouse. I live in the real world where things can be proven so I can't accept some cockamamie idea that life spontainously sprang from non life. No matter how many billions of years you want to push the start of the first life back in time or how many iterations you think it went through, you can't get around the fact that it had a start at some point in time. Until I can witness life coming into existence from non life I will just go on accepting the reality that I can easly prove. Resorting to concepts and fairy tales about life's spontaneous beginning that can't be proven, is just another form of religion masquerading as science. I just can't muster up the faith to believe that blind chance wrote the complex genetic coding that is so easy to prove exists. In my world where reality reigns I have no problem understanding the distinction between life and non life. Bird life, Rock non-life

@ Ǽon
Did you not read my links/understand my posts & points I made for you ?

Pick one & ask clarify ?

Or at least observe KEY issue = ALL chemicals of which ALL life on Earth is made fully consistent with ALL compounds found in the early Earth's atmosphere - Ammonia, CO2, H2O

ie Amino Acids ammonia rich & DNA bases easily made from non-living chemicals with benefit of heat & electricity

ALL those chemical very plentiful on Earth & geologic/radioactive data & mix re heavy metals fully
consistent with nucleonics re a star's fusion/nova cycles.

Although Earth is ~ 4 Billion years old, doesnt mean life had to start here, could well have come from elsewhere Eg Panspermia

In any case :-)

Say it did & was created by some god/thing/being *and* if we expect that thing is still around whether material or "spiritual" then why is it a woefully bad incompetent communicator plays favorites ?

Old writings are far more likely imaginative emotionally inspired claim

There is no question that the chemicals that all life forms are made of and are sustained by are found in nature. It would be illogical for our creators to do otherwise. Those same chemicals are abundant today, but there is no record of them getting together to make some new life form. No new life that's based on something other than DNA coding has ever been observed. It's simply illogical to believe life sprang from non life if it is still not happening today. Surely many other life forms based on some other than DNA coding would be found after billions of years of experimenting. Only one variation has been discovered so far near deep ocean volcanic vents. Surely there would be millions of diverse life forms everywhere in nature that were not based on DNA if they just spontainously sprang from a bunch of chemicals. This is not some religious belief but rather it's based on observation of the world around around us. Mike seems to want to fault our creators for not interfering with us.

Those same chemicals are abundant today, but there is no record of them getting together to make some new life form.

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

IOW - Just because we haven't yet found any doesn't mean there isn't any. Or maybe it's there but we can't recognize it yet.

iif life sprang by accident from a chemical soup there has been ample time for it to have happened in millions of variations other than those based on a common DNA design. There may be some well camufloged something hiding somewhere but until it is discovered after billions of years it's pretty good evidence of absence. Understanding creation is not based on this or that ancient religious belief but rather on readly observable facts.

iif life sprang by accident from a chemical soup there has been ample time for it to have happened in millions of variations other than those based on a common DNA design.

Suppose that new life does form constantly. Of necessity it has to be tiny. And it would be surrounded by millions of hungry bacteria.

It would appear that we have to wait until we can explore some of the thousands of known exoplanets before we can prove your hypothesis.

Suppose's and what-if's are fun mind games but prove nothing. The complexity of even the "simplist" life forms is proof of a designer. It seems to bruise a few egos to hear that intelligence exists that is vastly more superior to homosapians than mankind is to a one celled algae.

Maybe Dusty can get Captan Kirk to beam-up some of those bugs when he goes where no man has gone before.

Suppose's and what-if's are fun mind games but prove nothing. The complexity of even the "simplist" life forms is proof of a designer. It seems to bruise a few egos to hear that intelligence exists that is vastly more superior to homosapians than mankind is to a one celled algae.

Well, since your hypothesis can be neither proven nor disproved at this time, it has to remain a hypothesis regardless of how you phrase your arguments.

Ǽon wrote

There is no question that the chemicals that all life forms are made of and are sustained by are found in nature. It would be illogical for our creators to do otherwise

Beg Pardon ?

What leads your imagining you've an idea what transpired to set up Physics programs which either explore all permutations of most common (fusion) materials to make it evident some personal egotistical "god" that plays favourites made you with uncommon stuff - that would be significant especially so if the permutations of those uncommon materials couldn't be explored by us ?

NB You either haven't read links I offered OR you've not understood the prime significance ?

Haven't you considered the gulf of intelligence that must be evident for "our creators" to fashion components & then simply let the program run ie Let those physics rules explore ALL those permutations over eons that it must be so much higher than the gulf between our recent science & that of bacteria ?

�Ľon claimed

.. complexity of even the "simplist" life forms is proof of a designer

No its not & especially so it can't prove; intent, the morals, the expectation of future permutations for a "creator" to fashion 10 million plus species of bacteria - of which most are harmful to ALL life !

Nature in constant battle for survival, you've deadly bacteria on your skin, in your nose, in your gut & even some in your blood - its a chemical equilibrium which currently favours that the most harmful bacteria are held at bay by an imperfect immune system, please learn key biology ?

ALL systems in nature subject to change, bacteria by far the fastest & easiest to observe change !

�Ľon says

.. bruise a few egos to hear that intelligence exists that is vastly more superior to homosapians than mankind is to a one celled algae

Perhaps so why the hell, if it needs personal ego which was "jealous", that it plays favorites with only approx 5 men via claim ?

Mike you seem to be hung up on some religious interpertation that pretends to know the nature and intent of your creators. You seem to want to apply some set of human morals to beings that are not human. No such morals exist in nature i.e. Sometimes the Lion wins and sometime the Gazell wins and the Lion goes hungry which is a fair representation of the creators nature.. You sound reasonably intelligent, albeit a little mixed up, but you probably resemble an amoeba more than you do your creators. You were given the chance to live partially by the chance and happenstance of selective choice but the possibility that you could ever be, was programmed into and passed on through DNA coding from the first creations. This is a fact whether you acknowledge that it was the creators or chance alone that made it possible.

This thread started out to be about some silly professor speculating about a fictions planet nine causing havoc in a already dying solar system in about four or five billion years. That's hardly sceince and it has no value for mankind other than to titulate the imagination. Most of the subsequent posts have made about as much sense and sound as though they were written by children with liminted intellect and no real world experience.

@Ǽon
My posts & especially earlier on address the very problem you are meandering around with what seems to be only partly considered issues, please re-read my posts for more depth however, to simplify & summarize then re "our creators" (which has a wholly deterministic perspective ie something "did it")

Clearly you've not read or understood breadth of my posts & not answered by convergence my direct questions, then please focus on these Q's

1. Do you accept "our creators" haven't communicated anything about them re their; plan, intent, morals, care, education, consequences for any & ALL life-forms or even existence thereon ?

1.1
If answer is yes then we can move on - if no then articulate how/what they communicate(d) & with what; precision, reliability & objectiveness ?

2. Regardless of 1/1.1, how can we independently assess the nature of reality given "our creators" have betrayed their attributes by that which we observe - Eg 1 Natures Permutations ?

Our creators are under no obligation to communicate anything to us. You and I are really not very important in the overall scheme of things. Earth is but a tiny grain of sand relative to the universe and we are merely parasites on it. For the creators to communicate with us would be like us communicating with a bacteria. I have said adnausium, the ultra complex programming contained in the complex genetic coding that allows life, had to be in the first life to be passed on to subsequent life. That is a udesputable fact and the programming necessary to achieve and reproduce life had to be written by a creator and/or creators with infinite intelligence. Half of the programming necessary to make a human is contained in a microscopic sperm. That sperm has a operating system, a power supply, programming, a guidance system, a clock and a propeller. To believe that that happened by accident is to ignore reality.

Ǽon wrote

Our creators are under no obligation to communicate anything to us

Sure but, in *any* particular way is it possible they betrayed themselves by attributes of reality ?

Ǽon claims

.. ultra complex programming contained in the complex genetic coding that allows life, had to be in the first life to be passed on to subsequent life

:-)
1. Your idea "ultra complex" isnt shared by programmers who routinely use genetic programming
2. Programmers need not know *anything* about materials, their concern is permutations only & look at atoms suggest a creator need only start the permutations & wait for best outcomes !

Ǽon says

.. udesputable fact and the programming necessary to achieve and reproduce life had to be written by a creator and/or creators with infinite intelligence

No. Please read again re genetic programming - it works !

Ǽon says

.. happened by accident is to ignore reality

You miss selection environment.

I stick by complex. It took hundreds of scientists and technitions world wide from 1990 to 2003 just to complete the human genome project. and this is just a small start toward deciphering the the riddle of life. Yea ultra complex might be an understatement.

Human Nature makes us hear only what we already believe and to just ignore any proof to the contrary. |><|

�Ľon wrote

.. hundreds of scientists and technitions world wide from 1990 to 2003 just to complete the human genome project

You exaggerate & only After event, ie You cannot
tell what series of permutations Eg amino acid grouping went through, besides we've only had computing power up to level necessary in last 20 yrs

�Ľon says

.. what we already believe and to just ignore any proof to the contrary

Not about belief, didnt you read/comprehend my posts re genetic algorithms please ?

Summary

1. Programmer *only* testing permutation
2. No need for knowledge of outcome
3. No interest in whether *any* intermediate permutation worked
4. Only needs very simplest "primitives" such as 4 DNA bases to produce complexity

�Ľon, you don't seem to appreciate that from very simple primitives the process Easily produces immense complexity which looks AS IF its an "intelligent design" when its clearly Not ! capisce ?

Havent answered Q in my last post ?

This is for no one in particular. The creators programmed the genetic coding that not only
allowed you to exist but to manufacture half the coding to allow another separate life to exist. The programming that facilitates the operation of the automatic process that happen without your intentional participation, like heart beat and digestion, was written free of charge on your hard drive, without your input or participation in the process. Other programming that you are probably not aware of was also written on your hard drive and is readly available to access. You and I are literally meat-heads. We are autonomous biological robots that are marviously designed. Make the most of the gift of life you were given. You are guaranteed only one shot.

Ǽon claims

.. creators programmed the genetic coding that not only
allowed you to exist but to manufacture half the coding to allow another separate life to exist

What is basis for that claim ?

How are the 'creators' intentions betrayed by the factual observation all nature is "Eat & be eaten", doesn't this strongly show 'creators' expect; change, adaptation, competition, breeding, mutations Eg re varying levels of background radiation ie Damage ?

Have you analysed or even considered conjunctive properties that DNA is malleable & changes occur so very easily Eg exchange of DNA by different bacterial species ?

In relation to all my points raised, why do you ignore observable facts re "genetic algorithms" where the being that started it *need not* have *any* knowledge of permutations at all ?

Ǽon claims

... biological robots that are marviously designed

No - very Badly designed - all factual evidence consistent with change & at many levels !

Deep. :-)

A positive genetic mutation is an extremely rare thing and that the greater preponderance of genetic mutations are either fatal or neutral, this dumps your math in the can. In addition the eveloution paradox "which came first the chicken or the egg" has never been intelligently explained, but the world awaits the next fool.

Ǽon claims

A positive genetic mutation is an extremely rare thing and that the greater preponderance of genetic mutations are either fatal or neutral, this dumps your math in the can

No it doesn't, show the math ?

Very clear you don't understand significance of a "genetic algorithm" one bit, work out the permutation space for carbon ?

Also your mindset is clouded when you say "..fatal" - haven't you noticed ALL beings die, fatality is complete & permanent, the *only* thing that survives with mostly minor changes most of the time is DNA ie chemicals, look at sexual vs asexual reproduction as well as the asymptotes re just when stored mutations not expressed - then become present ?

You still haven't answered my last Q, a cognitive block ?

Ǽon with facile

.. chicken or the egg" has never been intelligently explained, but the world awaits the next fool

Has been explained but, can only be understood by those with intelligence AND Math education

On the other hand, if you believe in an all-wise, loving and kind God who created everything ...- believe in the age of rocks or believe in the Rock of Ages.

So you're saying everything has meaning only if you decide it has meaning. Ok. So why do you need to make up an imaginary friend to do it? The universe has meaning because I give it meaning. I don't need to invent invisible forces to give it that. It's amazing enough as it really is

Meaning? I would say you are confusing the symbolizing of existence with actual existence itself.

We don't even know what "meaning" is as it is merely a subjective indeterminable supposition of what the "I" feels (meaning) "should" be... There is nothing concrete about the word meaning at all. Our languages are insufficient to further delve into the mysteries that lie beyond. Math is too abstract and our verbal communications are too simple and convey very little detail.

So Ǽon gave up - nil response, think he knows re a "creator" & its attributes, what can be achieved if people bow out so very easily & cannot take up a challenge, refuse to learn, refuse to consider even the basics of dialectic just making unsupportable claims, very sad :/

Are we surprised re Trump and his facile support systems, this sums it up rather well re the problem
of education in USA, I have not met one person anywhere in my travels in southern hemisphere who considers Trump any more than a self serving narcissist who comes across as a megalomaniac and would be a disaster for US & subsequently the world - his comment re nukes - ugh !

So can any "god fearing" person or arbitrary believer in any religion clearly articulate the well known attributes of their respective "creators/gods" & how Nature factors into that ?