Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Written by: spiralx
Wrong, sorry
Some sub-atomic particles decay; but certainly not all of them. Electrons and electron-neutrinos do not decay, protons may decay (but over incredibly long spans - their half-life is at least 10^32 years based on current evidence) and neutrons only decay if not bound up within an atomic nucleous.
So basically we'd only notice any kind of decay if protons do decay, and even then we'd have to wait for the Universe to be a thousand trillion trillion times as old as it is today for half of all protons to have decayed...
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Written by: dream
One says that humanity is just one step from an omnipotent being
The other says we're just a complex organism which isn't really that special at all (except in our destructive capabilities)
As for 'we are like our mighty intelligent designer' or 'we are made in God's image'... No species which is currently altering environmental conditions so as to render itself extinct really has the right to call itself intelligent, let alone god-like.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Written by: Dream
Eminese... We've been over this already.
Natural selection and evolution are not one and the same thing.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Theoretically organisms could have been intelligently designed at the begining. After that they would evolve in a neo-darwinian fashion. As I mentioned earlier though there simply isn't reason to supsect an intelligent designer.
Written by: EminenseI didn't write that. Please be more careful with the quotation functionWritten by: jeff(fake)
Eminese... We've been over this already.
Natural selection and evolution are not one and the same thing.
Written by: EminenseThe 'assumtions' of evolution are Heredity (offspring resembling parents) and Selection (organism which produce more offspring will have more offspring on average). Which of those two is unscientific?
My point was to illustrate certain assumptions in naturalistic evolutionary theory that are no more scientific than to say that everything was teologically designed.
Written by: EminenseYour post lacks a degree of coherence here, but I think that what you are asking is why do we assume that the world is ordered? The reason is that order is observable in the natural world. The sun rises ever day and water flows down hill. Likewise snow flakes form incredibly intricate and complex forms, all without the influence of a diety.Written by: jeff(fake)
Theoretically organisms could have been intelligently designed at the begining. After that they would evolve in a neo-darwinian fashion. As I mentioned earlier though there simply isn't reason to supsect an intelligent designer.
Isn't the neo-darwinistic response a reason to suspect an intelligent designer? I don't mean for this to sound like an antagonistic or persnickety question. We formulate such theories based on the assumption of a coherent answer; absent an intelligent designer, why should there be an expectation of coherence in the natural order? To assert neo-darwinism is to appeal to a teleological argument which in its nature appeals to some sort of design.
Written by: dreamWhy call such a thing God?
One where you get pm's from Jeff saying your semantic wranglings mean that you're no longer talking about (his conception of) God.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by:
Natural selection is the driving force for evolution even in a neo-darwinist view
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: SeyeThere is a bacteria which uses a reduced flagellum motor as a means of toxin injection. It's a derived mechanism rather than a ancesteral form but it does show that the bacterial flagellus could have existed in a simpler form.
Jeff - "For something to be considered science then it has to give some practicle way by which it could be disproven. Evolution could be disproven if a truely irriductibly complex system could be found in biology." - This is an argument being used by some scientists in the US at the moment relating to the flagellum of a specific bacteria (this is a kind of "outboard motor" attached to the bacteria which cannot work without all 40 or so parts). Of course, this is not irreducible complexity though. It is just that we do not have any evidence of previous incarnations of such a creature. Its more to to with human stupidity than the lack of scientific ablity to prove the ID fanatics wrong.
Written by: dream
No. Neodarwinism is taking natural selection much further than Darwin ever intended... To the point where natural selection is evolution.
Written by: dreamI was happy talking this over in PMs dream. But the word God in our culture implies a consciousness and great supernatural power and knowledge. To transfer anouther cultures notion of the devine into ours and using the term God in a way that it isn't used in thier's is problematic.
And who are you to tell people what is and isn't God. There are plenty of other faiths around the globe that worship natural systems as God(s). Or is this your perpetuation of Occidental cultural imperialism?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Written by: jeff(fake)
I didn't write that. Please be more careful with the quotation function
Written by: jeff(fake)
The 'assumtions' of evolution are Heredity (offspring resembling parents) and Selection (organism which produce more offspring will have more offspring on average). Which of those two is unscientific?
Written by: jeff(fake)
Your post lacks a degree of coherence here, but I think that what you are asking is why do we assume that the world is ordered? The reason is that order is observable in the natural world. The sun rises ever day and water flows down hill. Likewise snow flakes form incredibly intricate and complex forms, all without the influence of a diety.
Written by: dream
No. Neodarwinism is taking natural selection much further than Darwin ever intended... To the point where natural selection is evolution.
Written by: faithinfire
i was taught and believe that evolution is the how and the creationism (in the non crazy literalist group sense) is the why. intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. as was mentioned why not have it all designed and then give it all a good kick start (big bang) and then the system begins simply at first and then developing into more complex organisms. why can't a greater being have designed that? thus this being is the why it started and the evolution is how it continues even today
(oh and that whole in His image thing. that does not mean that He is human like in appearance. it is more like our humanity is in some way reminiscent of His divinity. we are creating problems, extinction is an alarmist view sort of like chicken little, but a Christian might say that it is because man cannot see clearly with the veil of sin in front of our eyes and so we destroy rather than create. we are created in His image and we each have great potential that very few people ever realize -mother theresa, ghandi, buddha, augustine, aquainus, oprah?-but it is still there and it is LIKE is image. like creating a simile-similar to but is not the object itself)
Written by: jeff(fake)
For something to be considered science then it has to give some practicle way by which it could be disproven. Evolution could be disproven if a truely irriductibly complex system could be found in biology. But by what means could intelligent design be disproven? Without providing a mechanism by which it can be disproved then it remains a matter of faith.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
Written by: dreamI'm actually slightly hurt by this. I wasn't discussing other culture's origin stories because noone has brought them up yet. I thought you were joking when you called me a diety fascist...
when posting on an global message forum, claiming the only schools of thought worth discussing are those of the White, Christian, Western European, male seems to me to be somewhat of a joke.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: onewheeldave
In particular, Patriarch, I think, if you wish to promote the creationist account, you should address the following two points which have arisen on multiple occasions in thsi thread-
a. why is the christian creationist account any more plausible than other creationist accounts (including the sphagetti monster account, which, though humerous, is raising a serious question- why is the christian account more plausible than just making up any random creation accont)
b. is there anything which can disprove creationism?Written by: jeff(fake)
For something to be considered science then it has to give some practicle way by which it could be disproven. Evolution could be disproven if a truely irriductibly complex system could be found in biology. But by what means could intelligent design be disproven? Without providing a mechanism by which it can be disproved then it remains a matter of faith.
if yes, then what is it?
If no, then why do you think that creationism should be allowed to waiver this fairly fundamental requirement for scientific theories?
Written by: jo_rhymes
The problem with finding "evidence" for the argument of God, in my opinion, is it's subjective. What do you want as evidence? People have a pre-conceived view of God, and if you're looking for a pre-conceived God, then you won't find it. And continually reject anything that opposes your truth.
For me, evidence of God is everywhere.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Written by: Patriarch917This is a basic misunderstanding of nature. 'Species' is just a convienient grouping name, like genus or class, based on recent descent. After all some taxonomists insist that birds should be classified as reptiles, it's just historical reasons we class them in a group of thier own. It would be impossible for one organism to change into a completly different one, like a dog into a cat. Evolution only works through descent, like a wolf into a dog, to provide an example of one species becoming anouther.
First, the Bible says that animals reproduce after their own kind. We know that through natural and artificial breeding, huge variations in the manifested characteristics can be derived. For example, we have all different sorts of dogs. In order to disprove creation, one need merely observe dogs naturally turning into a different kind of animal, such as a cat.
Written by: Patriach917a:human's evolved from an ape. In fact we are still apes.
A second prediction is that all humans have descended from a group of 8 common ancestors (and those 8 were descended from just two common ancestors a little further back.) If we could find that a branch of humans developed from a genetic source that is different from the rest of us (a different sort of monkey), this would disprove the creation account.
Written by: Patriarch917You're right, they would be crap for runnin' or swimmin'. But they would be freakin great for gliding. Really now.
Bat wings seem to be another easy to understand candidate for something that is unlikely to have developed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that rat like creatures could have given birth to many generations with gradually larger and larger webbed forepaws that were not suited for either running, swimming, or flying. Ockham’s Razor seems to suggest that the wings sprang up in a useful form at once.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: Patriarch917
b. the Creation account makes two predictions that could be disproved by observable, repeatable experiments.
First, the Bible says that animals reproduce after their own kind. We know that through natural and artificial breeding, huge variations in the manifested characteristics can be derived. For example, we have all different sorts of dogs. In order to disprove creation, one need merely observe dogs naturally turning into a different kind of animal, such as a cat.
Written by: Patriarch917
Irreducible complexity seems to depend too much on the eye of the beholder. Is it not true that the simplest possible life form is itself an irreducibly complex system, requiring many simultaneous features to be present in order to sustain itself?
Bat wings seem to be another easy to understand candidate for something that is unlikely to have developed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that rat like creatures could have given birth to many generations with gradually larger and larger webbed forepaws that were not suited for either running, swimming, or flying. Ockham’s Razor seems to suggest that the wings sprang up in a useful form at once.
However, most evolutionists are comfortable accepting that such things happened consistently, over and over again, for every feature we observed today. As a historical matter, this cannot be disproved. It must be accepted on faith.
Creationism, and Intelligent Design, do not waive the “fundamental requirement” of disprovable predictions any more than evolution does. It is not at all strange to find that many people accept them as being more plausible, and there is no justification for the government banning students from learning about them.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Written by: Patriarch917
Bat wings seem to be another easy to understand candidate for something that is unlikely to have developed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that rat like creatures could have given birth to many generations with gradually larger and larger webbed forepaws that were not suited for either running, swimming, or flying. Ockham’s Razor seems to suggest that the wings sprang up in a useful form at once.
Written by: onewheeldave
But, if matter had existed for ever, then all protons would have decayed by now.
However many thousand trillion, trillion...etc, times longer than the current estimated age of the universe the life-span of protons is; it's nothing compared to the infinite time-span of said matter having existed for ever.
Unless of course, we're assuming that the universe was created a set finite time ago- but, given that the notion of matter existing forever was brought to show that creation simply wasn't necessary (because, if matter has always existed it isn't in need of (in fact it can't be) created- then it's safe to assume that we're working on the hypothesis that any current matter has existed for an infinite length of time.
Written by: onewheeldave
That being the case, the existence of particles like protons, if science has shown they have a finite life-span; effectively disproves the hypothsis.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Written by: dream
From the OEDWritten by:
Macroevolution
1.Major evolutionary change, usually over a long period; the evolution of genera or higher taxa.
1937 T. DOZHANSKY Genetics & Origin of Species i. 12 For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and micro-evolution
poor paranoid neodarwinists... they think the whole world's full of irrational ID types.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
Written by: jo_rhymes
This topic amuses me. ok, evolution happens..granted. ok, God is out there (perhaps!). Some people disagree, some people agree.
What's the problem?!
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.