From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 25/02/2026 12:52 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   > On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:15:09 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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"   
   >>>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)