What stops them once they reach that degree?Originally Posted by Adelheid
Why?
Like what?
What stops them once they reach that degree?
Why?
Like what?
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Thank you, Adelheid, nice to see you back!
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
Why can't one believe in both of them? It doesn't have to be evolution versus creation; what if God created the world via evolution?
Well, anyway, I'm tired of this kind of discussions. Maybe in future scientists will prove that the world began from gigantic rabbit's **** :).
A good novel is like a rainbow garden in your pocket.
agreed.. one theory does not rule out the other. What gets to me is that evolution is taught as fact, when it is a theory.Why can't one believe in both of them? It doesn't have to be evolution versus creation; what if God created the world via evolution?
Well, anyway, I'm tired of this kind of discussions. Maybe in future scientists will prove that the world began from gigantic rabbit's ****.
Evolution not creation because God is being per se. Aseitas- of its very nature to exist. God was not created. God's nature is as a super high energy atom which splits to form stars which splits into lower energy atoms to form planets and the splitting continues into low energy animal vegetable and minerals. Therefore God is within all matter....all matter is God.
In my humble opinion.............
I noticed several people saying how sceintists recreated the condinitons under which earth was some billion years ago, and (after several weeks and several other variables) some kind of life-forming protein was found
I would like to point out that the conditions of one of the more famous experiments (the name escapes me) were not those of our earth some billion years ago, but the conditions most likely to create that life-forming protein.
I believe that evolution is more likely, but i am undecided...
"...thought is the arrow of time, memory never fades."
This thread has certainly come a very long way. We have been through the days when people called each other names, questioned each other's sincerity, and generally had an old-fashioned no-holds-barred knockdown, drag-out fight. Things seem much calmer these days. Maybe we all are finally learning something. That would be this: If you sit down and take a moment to first lock prejudice out of the room, then you can actually discuss things. Oh, you may never reach a point where you are going to agree. But you will suddenly stop seeing the other side as your enemy. A question was asked over 2000 years ago: "And what is truth?" To each of us, it means something a little different. It may be based on science; it may be based on Religious faith, but it has a basis somewhere that is very real to each individual. If we go to the discussion bound and determined that if what we hear doesn't fit what we believe to be true then we will just discard that, how can any of us say that we are entering this with an open mind? What we have there is a doorway that is shaped so that only certain things may pass through, in essence, a filter. If we are going to filter out what we don't like, our mind is still closed to a single point of view. Nobody is saying you must believe anything, but listen to things from different aspects. I have found friends that way. We may disagree a little, but we took the time to listen. It's not all that hard.
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
Sometimes I wonder why I stir the pot again, buy I can't help myself.
We speak so often of experiments in a closed system, when I have tried to argue against chance, and for Intelligent Design. I used Probability Math and a deck of cards, which as was pointed out, does limit the experiment somewhat.
So we will use the Earth and every living person. Now, if we take that n = a positive integer , so that (n ≥ 1 and ≤ ∞), no closed system, and n represents a human individual:
How can chance possibly consistently produce each n, so that that n is unique? The human individual is so completely individualized. They have unique fingerprints, footprints, voiceprints, retina-scans, and DNA maps that can be used to identify them beyond any reasonable doubt. It is even said by scientists, that a person’s lip prints are unique. There are simply too many factors to trust to chance. This is design, and design so remarkable that to call it anything except Intelligent would be foolish.
And even if the child is born from an egg and sperm germinated in a Petra dish, this child will still have the unique factors. Even a clone would share the unique factors of the host. If we could clone replacement organs, there would be no rejection, it would be in essence that body’s own organs. Just a thought.
And Intelligent Design requires an Intelligence to do the designing. There is where science and God meet. God Bless.
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
How can it not? There are an awful lot of positive intergers between 1 and infinity.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Quite true. I wasn't taking chances on "you aren't doing your experiment enough" this time! But anything that produces a consistant result is not chance. It is a given thing.
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
But getting a different result every time isn't a constant result. There are, according to my friend who takes biology, more than 30,000 human genes. Even if there were only two allels per gene (and there are sometimes dozens), that would mean that the chances of producing a randomly selected human is roughly the same as having a coin come up heads 30,000 times in a row, a number so low that I have no calculator within reach that can express it.Quite true. I wasn't taking chances on "you aren't doing your experiment enough" this time! But anything that produces a consistant result is not chance. It is a given thing.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
What I said was that it consistently produces a unique person, which means that each thing must come up on the gene chart responsible for such things as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina-scan, footprint, etc, as a unique marker every time. That is staggering to contemplate. I could see chance creating a template which then repeats itself ad infinitum, but many things which science has created by accident (chance), would be of great use to us, except that they cannot figure out exactly how the original formula was created. When they can, as with Vulcanized Rubber, the basis for our automobile tires, the accident becomes a great discovery. But then, I will never convince one who does not wish to believe in Intelligent Design, and I do not say that you are wrong for your stand. My major point made long ago still stands for us all. “Has it ever occurred to you that YOU could be wrong?”, which applies as much to me as anyone else! Nice day, Cuppa!
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
Yes, I see what you mean, but I don't think that consistently producing a unique person counts as a consistent result as such. There are so many variables at work that a unique result every time is precisely what you would expect, with or without an intelligent designer rigging the experiment. The number of heads, tails, heads patterns that one can produce from flipping a coin 30,000 times is, according to the cheap calculator softwear that came with this computer, infinity. I've tried to explain to my computer that infinity is not actually a number, but it seems that it is rather thick. And genetic code is only one factor of human uniqueness. Your exampes of fingerprint and retinal scan, for example, are not the result of genetic code at all: but rather are determined and formed by some bizzare process in utero, which is why even identical twins have unique fingerprints and retinal paterns. Even then, fingerprints can be changed by events later in life. I, for example, have no fingerprint on the tip of my left index finger, just a mass of callus.
In fact, this kind of variation is exactly the kind of thing we don't see in things that we do know for certain to be intelligently designed. If my computer, for example was subject to that kind of variety, I would be sending it back to the manufacturer. God, however, is usually seen more in the vein of artist than atisan, and could certainly produce unique works each time if He wanted, but, since uniqueness is just what we would expect from chance, I have trouble seeing human variation as evidence either for or against design. Regardless, said variation is, and you could not possibly have put it better, staggering.
Indeed, I think my more pressing problem might be convincing myself that I might be right before opening my mouth. My very best wishes to you as well, Pen.But then, I will never convince one who does not wish to believe in Intelligent Design, and I do not say that you are wrong for your stand. My major point made long ago still stands for us all. “Has it ever occurred to you that YOU could be wrong?”, which applies as much to me as anyone else! Nice day, Cuppa!
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Some critiques of ID by people who hold far more PhDs than I do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
This is fascinating lecture by Ken Miller, if you have the time, the bandwidth and the inclination to watch (it is over two hours long). Mr. Miller is the author of the textbook which had the infamous "Evolution is theory and not fact" stickers attached to it, before being presented to students for their consideration. Miller is not, as one might expect, an atheist, but rather a Roman Catholic, although I'm not quite sure that this fact qualifies him as a balanced viewpoint, seeing as the Vatican endorses Darwin.
http://download.guardian.co.uk/sys-a...y11122006x.mp3
That one's a bit shorter. It's a Guardian podcast talking mainly about the ID controversy on the British Isles. The speakers include an ID proponent from the Truth in Science group, a theistic Darwinist and an atheistic one, who sounds quite a lot like Sir Ian McKellen. McKellen is, of course, the actor who recently charmed the American intelligent design crowd by being a homosexual atheist who appeared in The DaVinci Code and made smart remarks about Jesus on television. There are side discussions of life on Mars, left-handedness and rapping urban birds. Really.
Last edited by cuppajoe_9; 12-13-2006 at 07:36 PM.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Excellent link. The Ken Miller lecture is fantastic. Too bad i couldnt see the whole thing: it is supposedly two hours long yet it only runs up to 51 min?
I cant believe that guy isnt an atheist.
Posting Permissions
