From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 24/02/2026 4:02 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   > On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:00:43 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 23/02/2026 2:57 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:22:13 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> That is transparently begging the question. The primary purpose of   
   >>>>>> talk.origins is to debate origins,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Actually, not debate, but debunk pseudoscientific ideas about life's   
   >>>>> history and diversity like "young  earth" creationism,  Intelligent   
   >>>>> Design, and flood geology.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Excellent. I'm here to debunk:   
   >>>> - origin-of-life hand-waving hypotheses   
   >>>   
   >>> Which is good as far as that goes, as long as you don't try to replace   
   >>> them with the ultimate hand-waving called "God did it"   
   >>>   
   >>>> - macroevolution just-so stories   
   >>>   
   >>> Not a problem there, as long as you're not contending that all   
   >>> macroevolutionary scenarios are "just-so stories."  Rather you should   
   >>> understand that those are scenarios often rest on very firm evidence.   
   >>>   
   >>>> - universe from a quantum fluctuation   
   >>>   
   >>> I think decay from a false vacuum to  a lower-level "true" vacuum is   
   >>> the favored hypothesis these days.   
   >>>   
   >>>> - fine-tuning as not-a-problem   
   >>>   
   >>> What would you do if a Theory of Everything were finally discovered,   
   >>> and it show that fine-tuning was inevitable?   
   >>>   
   >>>> - multiverse solves probabilistic problems   
   >>>   
   >>> What probabilistic problems does it supposedly fail to solve?   
   >   
   > Let's see; you seem to have an interest in reducing science to   
   > "faith-building" nature nuggets.  Let's see how well that went for you   
   > this time:   
   >   
   >> Fine-tuning   
   >   
   > Even with an enormous number of "trials" available in that lottery?   
   > Furthermore, I'll ask again, what would you do if we had a Theory of   
   > Everything, and it predicted the values of the constants from first   
   > principles?   
   >   
   >> low-entropy initial conditions,   
   >   
   > From:   
   >   
   > https://tinyurl.com/4ju5vah2   
   >   
   > "Curiously, our Universe was born in a low entropy state, with   
   > abundant free energy to power stars and life. The form that this free   
   > energy takes is usually thought to be gravitational: the Universe is   
   > almost perfectly smooth, and so can produce sources of energy as   
   > matter collapses under gravity. It has recently been argued that a   
   > more important source of low-entropy energy is nuclear: the Universe   
   > expands too fast to remain in nuclear statistical equilibrium,   
   > effectively shutting off nucleosynthesis in the first few minutes,   
   > providing leftover hydrogen as fuel for stars."   
   >   
   >> initial conditions of   
   >> inflation,   
   >   
   > From:   
   >   
   > https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10065666%5D   
   >   
   > "Abstract: I review the present status of the problem of initial   
   > conditions for inflation   
   > and describe several ways to solve this problem for many popular   
   > inflationary models, including the recent generation of the models   
   > with plateau potentials favored by cosmological observations."   
   >   
   >> initial functional polymer sequences.   
   >   
   > What do you mean by that?   
   >   
   >>>> - etc   
   >>>   
   >>> Just don't get stuck wallowing in creationism as you study these   
   >>> questions.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> including the *question* of   
   >>>>>> evolution. Are you in the wrong forum then?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> And you know your statements are an oversimplification. You know that   
   >>>>>> the vast majority of creationists accept some degree of microevolution   
   >>>>>> and adaptation. You know that you've deliberately conflated micro and   
   >>>>>> macroevolution.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> And you know doing this is not valid. Either that, or you don't   
   >>>>>> understand the terms and logic of this debate.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Sure, argue that macroevolution = microevolution + time, or whatever.   
   >>>>>> But don't pretend that they are the same thing, and don't assert that   
   >>>>>> the argument is settled. It is not.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It is settled.  Both macroevolution and microevolution are supported   
   >>>>> by an overwhelming amount of evidence. For example, we have   
   >>>>> indications that the entire vertebrate genome has been duplicated a   
   >>>>> couple of times.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The only way this observation can be explained is by common descent of   
   >>>>> all of the vertebrates involved, since there's no reason for God to   
   >>>>> leave evidence for events that didn't occur.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Nor could we expect the two genome duplications to occur again and   
   >>>>> again separately in the various vertebrate evolutionary lineages.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Instead, address the science:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> "more contingent on low-probability historical events"   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> "The frustrated nature of the evolutionary network suggests that chance   
   >>>>>> emergence of a ribozyme motif would be more important than optimization   
   >>>>>> by natural selection."   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> "is likely to result from chance events rather than natural selection."   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> "We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too   
   >>>>>> much."   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It looks like your luck is running out.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Your quotes don't actually say that.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)