-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
i·de·a
n.
1. Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.
2. An opinion, conviction, or principle: has some strange political ideas.
3. A plan, scheme, or method.
4. The gist of a specific situation; significance: The idea is to finish the project under budget.
5. A notion; a fancy.
Well you have a mind, its not dead, therefore it is active. Proves 1.
Well the opinions in the Backroom proves 2.
TCP/IP is a method of transmitting information on the internet... you are using it, even if you don't know it. So that proves 3.
Key point of a concept is the idea. Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction is the gist of conservation of momentum. Proves 4.
I fancy a chocolate. Enough proof for 5.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well you have a mind, its not dead, therefore it is active. Proves 1.
Well the opinions in the Backroom proves 2.
TCP/IP is a method of transmitting information on the internet... you are using it, even if you don't know it. So that proves 3.
Key point of a concept is the idea. Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction is the gist of conservation of momentum. Proves 4.
I fancy a chocolate. Enough proof for 5.
Nop. That doesn't prove anything. The real thing behind the idea, what supports it is what exist, the idea is just a conceptualization of it. You can't touch an idea, nor sense it in any way. If we look for the concept (again concept) of existence in the dictionary (at least in mine) it sais this:
exist:
1-Having real existence.
2-Have life.
3-To have, to be.
So you have it in the mind, but as always, it doesn't have any real form in the outside world, is like every conceptualization, mental construction,tought, etc... So it doesn't exist. The idea itself doens't have a material form, is a logical contradiction, therefor it's not real, therefor it doesn't exist. :duel:
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
So the mind is outside this universe?
You have just proven that God exists as easily as does our own mind...
So your choice : You can have: no idea or God
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
A cookbook is written ideas on how to make food. It is a concept, plan, method, but the food itself does not exist until created.
Words are ideas, that have meaning when parsed by the reader.
The mind itself contains ideas by using neural networks.
Computers use electrical charge, magnetic, physical media all to contain ideas about things.
An idea does not need a physical version of it to exist. Works of fiction are purley ideas with little or no physical real version.
This is a key point about science. It is about having ideas, and seeing if you can find a physical version of it. Or vice a versa, see a phenomena and figure out how it works, the gist of it.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
A cookbook is written ideas on how to make food. It is a concept, plan, method, but the food itself does not exist until created.
Words are ideas, that have meaning when parsed by the reader.
The mind itself contains ideas by using neural networks.
Computers use electrical charge, magnetic, physical media all to contain ideas about things.
An idea does not need a physical version of it to exist. Works of fiction are purley ideas with little or no physical real version.
This is a key point about science. It is about having ideas, and seeing if you can find a physical version of it. Or vice a versa, see a phenomena and figure out how it works, the gist of it.
I agree with the last, but you're missing the point here. Mind exists outside the universe, yes, it's metaphysical, the universe is physical, all that exists beyond it is metaphysical.
I think this has become the continuation of the discussion in that other thread about communism. Any given idea is a conceptualization, a taking of reality, that performs in your mind as electrochemical fenomenums. Now that electrochemycal activity is real, the idea of idea isn't real, because, again is a logical contradiction. If it's not real, it doesn't exist, because if we say that something not real exists then well :dizzy2: ... Again the food and the cookbook exists the idea of that food and the cookbook not. I think that you're missunderstanding the semantics of "exist" and "existence". The ideas have importance, yes, they exist, just as a electrochemical activity inside your brain.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
That is not what I stated now is it?
Question from me: What is the relationship between God and Gravity (hint: it is not in the bible)
Ok. Enjoy.
Quote:
No the analogy is not correct - A car is a physical thing that man made. In Religous belief - Man is a physical being made by God.
Man is a machine just like a Car. And both physically respond to the physical world.
It is an apt analogy.
Quote:
Not even close - the Intelligent Design is based upon Genesis in the Old Testimate. The Intelligent Falling is not based upon any scripture in the bible.
Anything that's not in the bible doesn't exist? Gravity isn't in the bible either. What is the relationship between God and Gravity?
Quote:
Don't be so sure - From Wikipedia
And? Do you want to elaborate? LOL. I mean you want me to debate Wikipedia. Just to make you sure you actually understand what you are quoting. What's your point?
Quote:
The clementine is a new species of plant which was formed by joining two different fruits together.
So what? It doesn't change anything. What's the difference in the genetic level?
Mutation is still naturally, inherently, and independently random.
~:confused: And this is supposed to mean what to you? In your own words. Clue: Breeding dogs doesn't change the mechanism of mutation.
Quote:
Again dont be so sure -
Please, say something, especially in your own words. Be specific if you must.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Lets see distance does not enter into this defination of gravity.
Lets try another - just for giggles - it seems scientists can not agree what gravity is either. [sarcasm on] Always changing the concept of a natural occuring thing[sarcasm off]
Do you want to type anything specific? Or do you want me to debate Wikipedia? ~:)
Also, there's no mention of God is there? (which was the original purpose of the analogy).
Write down your arguments, in your own words. Don't just give me links.
Quote:
Of course I have not mocked it - I have shown it does not follow the basis of its claim to being - ie the context and the concept of the quotes used from the bible are not discussing gravity but human failings and incorrect teachings
If I say 'Rock Star Kurt Cobain told me 1 + 1 = 3'. You can say Kurt Cobain didn't say it because it is dead, and 1+1=3 is wrong. 1+1=3 is always wrong whether Kurt Cobain is dead or not.
Your only argument there is that it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the bible. The idea that God is behind gravity is similar to the idea that God is "behind evolution" in your own words.
Quote:
[sarcasm on] Ah trying to tell someone how to think - are we into brain washing now?[sarcasm off]
No. It only meant you are biased and inconsistent because you accept the concept that God is behind evolution but God behind gravity is preposterous.
Again, let me ask you, what is the relationship betweeen God and Gravity (hint: it cannot be found in the bible)
Quote:
Didn't say that either - the Bible is a book that tells things to people who care to read and learn from it. It has God's message for man in it, and it has the teachings of Jesus in it also.
God is behind Gravity. Do you agree or not?
You say NO, because it's not in the bible. ~:confused:
God is "behind Evolution". Your quote, so YES, because it is in the bible.
~:cool:
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
In little time society begun to fear and respect this "facts" and praised to God in this mans, calling them saints, calling them saviors. Thus religion gained an almost impenetrable position of power in earth society governing from the heavens. All misterious things that human could not explain by science (or that they don't believe that was science deeds) were "explained" by religion (tough technically talking the word explanation can be given to religion in any way). But in the actual world almost all fenomenums that were before "explained" by religion are explained by science, and all people (or almost all) believe that the Earth turns arround the Sun (if they don't belive it, well it will turn anyway...).
This is all true - and even as a believer in God - I understand that certain religous truthes are now outdated because science has shown it to be true by natural law.
What religous truths were taken from the bible. Where does it say the sun orbits the earth? Religous men explained these things not religion or the bible.
Quote:
Yes the Religous Organizations should not mock science - I agree with that statement.
And science should not mock religion.
Most christains believe all science does is uncover some of gods handiwork. Just because you discover how something works doesnt mean that god didnt design it. As to where god fits in the universe whos to say thats all there is? Our universe could be no bigger than an atom in the greater scheme of things for all we know.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Well Quietus it seems you just want to hate religion and are baised in your views toward it. The initial article was satire and a work of complete fiction. However you bought it hook, line, and sinker because it fits into your belief system about religion. This arguement has shown that.
Futhermore you have shown by your own words that you don't really understand how evolution works or the man's involvement in selective breeding of animals to create new types of dogs is indeed evolution also, which is a forced mutation of the animal.
The same can be said for almost all domestic animals. Man has been forcing small mutations on animals for years. It would take many pages and a complete thesis to show you how incorrect you are, but even then you will try to counter it with some attempt that really only digs you deeper into the false premises you have about evolution, mutation and selection.
Okay I am done being polite and will point out very clearly how little you know of evolution. For examble mutation is not Mutation is still naturally, inherently, and independently random.
Mutation can be forced by man. It can be forced by nature based upon the change of environment.
Some scientific studies on selective breeding and how it relates to evolution.
Here is the Wikipedia reference about artifical selection and how it relates to evolution - a term that was initially coined by Darwin himself. You might want to actually read some of what Darwin wrote - since he posulated exactly what I have been saying in regards to selective breeding by man of animals to force mutations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection
Quote:
the theory of evolution, artificial selection is the process of intentional or unintentional modification of a species through human actions which encourage the breeding of certain traits over others. When the process leads to undesirable outcome, it is called negative selection.
Charles Darwin originally coined the term in order to contrast this process from what he called natural selection. He noted that many domesticated animals and plants had special properties that were developed by intentionally encouraging the breeding potential of individuals who both possessed desirable characteristics, and discouraging the breeding of individuals who had less desirable characteristics.
[sarcasm on] Oh wait just in case you refuse to acknowledge Wikipedia as a source of information - here is another [sarcasm off]
http://www.biofact.com/cloning/
Quote:
Natural Selection
Natural Selection is nature's own form of genetic engineering. The most fit organisms survive through natural selection. The rate of evolution of new species through natural selection is incredibly slow, but methods have been discovered by which nature has optimized the process.
The entire genome (all the genes) of higher animals and plants are broken up into functional components known as exons and separated by regions called introns. Special genes known as transposable elements serve to mix and match functional components of genes in an effort to maximize the likelyhood of creating better genes and organisms. There is some evidence that bacteria, one of the simplest organisms, had introns and exons in some past era, but lost them in favor of efficiency and other means of acquiring new DNA.
Selective Breeding
Selective Breeding or "Unnatural Selection", is man's most basic effort at genetic engineering by creating our own selective pressures. Many conventional farm animals, domesticated dogs and cats were likely created ages ago by selectively breeding animals together with desired traits. Gregor Mendel helped to establish the rules of genetics through his work selectively breeding plants in the 1800's. Selective Breeding has worked well for engineering animals and plants, but it can take whole human lifetimes to bring about small changes in a species.
Through unnatural selection certain attributes and characteristics can be enhanced by selectively killing all organisms that do not have the desired traits. This has been suggested by some as a viable option for genetically engineering humans. Parents could produce a large number of fertilized eggs through in vitro fertilization. Each could be grown for a while in vitro and then be tested for desired traits. Only an egg with all the traits desired by the parents would then be implanted in the mother. There are obvious drawbacks, not the least of which is the large number of fertilized eggs that are not selected. This option is not a viable alternative for many couples for religious reasons.
Another drawback is that selecting for a very large number of traits is close to impossible. Each gene desired at least doubles the number of fertilized eggs required. Certain traits are the result of many genes acting in concert, which could inflate egg requirements very quickly. Last of all, fertilized eggs must have one copy of each gene from each parent. Even with an infinite number of eggs a bad gene cannot be totally eliminated if one parent has two copies of that gene.
To put it simply man has been practicing intelligent design on evolution for many years prior to Darwin coining the phrases about Natural Selection and Mutation of animals causing evolution.
You might want to try reading this particlur site - notice how the two scientists talk about the issue.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
And now to the gravity arguement - it has become obvious that you don't want to ackownledge one simple fact. The Intelligent Falling theory is what I have been talking about - not gravity and how it relates to the creator. For instance where have I stated that God did not create gravity. Again notice what is actually written verus what you percieve to be written. Here is what I initially stated.
So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
Which is the answer to your orginial question and assumption that there is no difference between the theory of Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling. Something that you seem to refuse to ackownledge - and instead of addressing the answer - you chose to go on a tangent now saying this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
I'm speaking of context and concept. You seem to be saying that because Gravity wasn't mentioned in the bible, then Gravity doesn't exist . What is the relationship between God and Gravity then?
Now this is nothing other then an attempt of redirection from your orginal arguement. Which is fine - however I have not answered that question for the simple fact - that you have not concided the initial point - you are attempting to avoid where it.
Oh I played around there alittle bit in the discussion around the gravity issue - purposely not answering the question because I was being applying sarcasm to your arguemetns. However its obvious that you did not catch the sarcasm on and sarcasm off notations.
However when you address the intial point of the difference between the two theories is that "Intelligent Design" is based upon the teachings, in both context and concept of The Old Testament - Genesis; While the "Intelligent Falling" theory is just satire based upon an out of context and out of concept teachings of two different verses, one verse out of the Old Testament and one out of the New Testament.
Then I will explain how God and Gravity are related - I will give you a hint it is also in Genesis of the Old Testament.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Which part of my statement?
"Science is not just a collection of laws, it is a catalogue of unrelated facts. It is the creation of the human mind, with its freely invented ideas and concepts."
Albert Einstein
"Great is the power of misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure."
Ken Smith, on Darwinism & the origin of species
Regardless of how one perceives the working of the brain, or the intent of an idea or concept; they all have a purpose. Whether the purpose is to debunk accepted theories or to provide further evidence to support them. Rellegating the brain to a flashpoint of chemical reactions, and man as being a respondant being trapped in his own environment of learning or teachings - is simplistic at best or foolish in its own selfindulgent view of what we are. (my own included, though I am willing to listen to honest arguements, versus contrived ones that support mythes over facts).
I add these as fun. The first has a number of mythical explanations on creation; the other is just so you can pick your own quiz. ~D
http://www.pbs.org/quiz/quiz10.html
http://www.pbs.org/quiz.html
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
What religous truths were taken from the bible. Where does it say the sun orbits the earth? Religous men explained these things not religion or the bible.
And that's exactly why i always stated "this men", religion is just an idea, without man's to support it and spread it, you have nothing, so all come from the interpreatation that some man's did from that and from other interpretation that comes directly from the bible, like the hate towards homosexuality.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Well Quietus it seems you just want to hate religion and are baised in your views toward it. The initial article was satire and a work of complete fiction. However you bought it hook, line, and sinker because it fits into your belief system about religion. This arguement has shown that.
Futhermore you have shown by your own words that you don't really understand how evolution works or the man's involvement in selective breeding of animals to create new types of dogs is indeed evolution also, which is a forced mutation of the animal.
There's no "forced mutation" because mutation is inherently random, like sugar is inherently 'sweet' to your tongue/brain and planets are inherently 'round'. You're mixing up Natural selection and Mutation. These are two different processes, concept and phenomenon.
Quote:
The same can be said for almost all domestic animals. Man has been forcing small mutations on animals for years. It would take many pages and a complete thesis to show you how incorrect you are, but even then you will try to counter it with some attempt that really only digs you deeper into the false premises you have about evolution, mutation and selection.
Okay I am done being polite and will point out very clearly how little you know of evolution. For examble mutation is not Mutation is still naturally, inherently, and independently random.
Get your concepts straight first before you blow over.
You are mixing up Mutation and Natural Selection. Even if you breed dogs or flowers, the mutation inside that dog or flower is exclusive.
Quote:
Mutation can be forced by man.
Again, no. That's not mutation , but Natural selection.
Quote:
It can be forced by nature based upon the change of environment.
Yes, that is exactly the point! However I won't call that "forced", because that implies order.
Nature is random and chaotic. Light is scattered (and with different wavelengths, polarity etc.) not like Intelligently Designed light like LASER. Lightning hitting the same spot twice? Wind with same vector? Surf waves with same dimensions?
Likewise, the mutational changes in your body is as random because the forces and the mechanism involving mutation is not ordered. Mutation occurs randomly.
God isn't saying "Oh I hate Peter Jennings, I'll mutate his DNA here, here and here so that he gets cancer". Peter Jennings was a smoker and smoking increased his risk of getting cancer.
God isn't saying "These humans are using vaccines and drugs to eliminate malaria and the flu, well, I'll mutate my killer babies so that they resist the drugs. Ok, I'll make a new strain that is drug resistant". The virus or living pathogens will mutate randomly REGARDLESS whether you have a drug to kill it or you actually deliver that drug. The only difference is that the selection pressure won't be the drug.
God isn't saying "This big shrub is outcompeting and killing my favorite flowers, I'll mutate it so that it grows bigger than the shrub". God isn't mutating the flowers and creating conditions that will favor and naturally select any specie to be the fittest and survive. That flower will mutate regardless if there is a shrub or a tree beside it.
No. There's no Intelligent Design. There is no God that is picking which one will mutate, when will it mutate, how it will mutate and which ones will survive! There is no God-force that is causing lighting to hit at a particular place at a particular time at will either. See the analogy?
In every single terminal cell you have that still has DNA, the DNA is mutating randomly. This is the same for all organisms that have DNA. But god has no hand in it, hence, zero input, hence no Intelligent Design.
Quote:
Some scientific studies on selective breeding and how it relates to evolution.
Here is the Wikipedia reference about artifical selection and how it relates to evolution - a term that was initially coined by Darwin himself. You might want to actually read some of what Darwin wrote - since he posulated exactly what I have been saying in regards to selective breeding by man of animals to force mutations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection
Don't mix up Natural Selection and Mutation!
Virus randomly mutates to a drug-resistent strain by chance. The virus is not thinking that "oh no, here comes the drug, I'll mutate". The mutation happens exclusively and it so happened that the mutation inhibits the effect of the drug, hence drug-resistant.
Drugs made by humans naturally (or you can say artificially) selects the fittest survivor by killiing the non-resistent strain. But the virus wasn't thinking or god is not mutating that so that it can resist the effects or delivery of that drug. The mutation is random.
Quote:
[sarcasm on] Oh wait just in case you refuse to acknowledge Wikipedia as a source of information - here is another [sarcasm off]
http://www.biofact.com/cloning/
To put it simply man has been practicing intelligent design on evolution for many years prior to Darwin coining the phrases about Natural Selection and Mutation of animals causing evolution.
You might want to try reading this particlur site - notice how the two scientists talk about the issue.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
Understand the basic, rudimentary concepts first before you use it as an argument. See my above post. ~:)
Quote:
And now to the gravity arguement - it has become obvious that you don't want to ackownledge one simple fact. The Intelligent Falling theory is what I have been talking about - not gravity and how it relates to the creator. For instance where have I stated that God did not create gravity. Again notice what is actually written verus what you percieve to be written. Here is what I initially stated.
So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
Which is the answer to your orginial question and assumption that there is no difference between the theory of Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling. Something that you seem to refuse to ackownledge - and instead of addressing the answer - you chose to go on a tangent now saying this.
1+1=3 whether you pick up the "phrase" in a Joke, a Book, a scrap of paper, or a Gossip column is wrong. And you should be able to say it is wrong in that context. You can't say 1+1=3 is wrong, while 1+1=5 is brilliantly correct.
You can't say Intelligently Design as brilliantly correct while Intelligent Falling is wrong either.
Quote:
Now this is nothing other then an attempt of redirection from your orginal arguement. Which is fine - however I have not answered that question for the simple fact - that you have not concided the initial point - you are attempting to avoid where it.
I did say it was my question didn't I? You're afraid to answer this question:
"What is the relationship between God and Gravity?"
because it's not in the bible? That is weird.... ~:confused:
Quote:
Oh I played around there alittle bit in the discussion around the gravity issue - purposely not answering the question because I was being applying sarcasm to your arguemetns. However its obvious that you did not catch the sarcasm on and sarcasm off notations.
Ok. ~:cool:
Quote:
However when you address the intial point of the difference between the two theories is that "Intelligent Design" is based upon the teachings, in both context and concept of The Old Testament - Genesis; While the "Intelligent Falling" theory is just satire based upon an out of context and out of concept teachings of two different verses, one verse out of the Old Testament and one out of the New Testament.
Then I will explain how God and Gravity are related - I will give you a hint it is also in Genesis of the Old Testament.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So, if the Old Testament mentioned God creating Gravity, you will believe in Intelligent Falling.
The only thing that is holding you back is that it isn't in the bible. Likewise, the only reason why you believe Intelligent Design is that is contained in the Bible.
All I'm saying is that line of thinking is biased and dogmatic.
ID = God drives Evolution.
IF = God drives Gravity.
I maintain that they are the same and both are false. You're saying they aren't the same concept and ID is correct only because it's in the bible and IF is incorrect because it's not in the bible.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
There's no "forced mutation" because mutation is inherently random, like sugar is inherently 'sweet' to your tongue/brain and planets are inherently 'round'. You're mixing up Natural selection and Mutation. These are two different processes, concept and phenomenon.
Well it seems you might want to talk to some research sciencists and get them on the same sheet of music - since most research is based on forcing the mutation via natural selection - or as Darwain called it artificial selection because of man's involvement. By the way Planets are not inherently round - they are something else.
Or by the way a researchers words on forced mutation. Several of them in fact
Quote:
Hoban, professor of food science and sociology at North Carolina State University, wrote in an editorial published November 26, 2000 by the Washington Post:
"Starlink, developed by the French-based drug company Aventis, is really no different from other corn, except for the addition off a gene that produces an insect-fighting protein. Corn had already been dramatically modified from the "natural" plant originally found in the wild. Those ancient ears of corn were the size of your little finger and looked more like grass than modern yellow corn. Over the ages, crossbreeding and, more recently, forced mutation, has produced the ear of corn we eat today. Starlink, with its one gene added to the approximately 60,000 in this modern ear, represents a very modest, precise change by comparison."
http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/0344...o/mutation.htm
Quote:
Twelve populations of E.coli B from a common ancestor were serially propagated for 10,000 generations. Click here fore experimental overview. In other words, like the previous experiment, each of the 12 populations started out with the same genome, and was forced to modify its genome through mutation to fit into the new environment which is also identical among populations. Each generation, some cells are taken from the culture, and their genomic DNA was harvested by a standard method. Every clone was scored for the presence or absence of each fragment that hybridized with a particular IS probes. In addition, phylogenies were constructed with the the actual common ancestor at the root of the tree. This is to illustrate the divergence of the clones. (3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Quote:
Natural selection is distinguished from artificial selection, which is the alteration of domesticated species resulting from human intervention as opposed the "natural environment". [b]However, the mechanisms of natural and artificial selection are essentially identical, and in fact the observed effects of artificial selection were used by Darwin to illustrate how natural selection works.
So in short -
Quote:
Get your concepts straight first before you blow over.
Yes indeed - someone needs to take their own advice. It seems that your own arguement on evolution is a contradiction of published research scientists to include Darwain. Again it seems your knowledge is lacking compared to published scienists and researchers.
Your accepting of the "Intelligent Falling" theory as something that Christian sciencists are advocating is another examble of this. You failed to get your concepts and context of the theory correct and/or straight before you chose to blow over and believe a satire article from The Onion. Yes indeed someone does need to follow their own advice
The rest of your post is the same - accusations and statements that run counter to establish research documents and statements, or is an attempt at misrepresenting the actual research done. Nor does the concept of Intelligent Design say any of the things that you stated. That is all hyperbole on your part.
Quote:
I maintain that they are the same and both are false. You're saying they aren't the same concept and ID is correct only because it's in the bible and IF is incorrect because it's not in the bible.
And you would still be incorrect. Someone needs to heed once again thier own words Understand the basic, rudimentary concepts first before you use it as an argument. I said Intelligent Falling does not follow the concept nor the context of the verse used to support the theory. The actual wording is available multiple times in the posting - but since you seem not to understand or it might be that you refuse acknowledge your own inablity to understand here it is again.
So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
However it seems that you only want to believe what you wish to ackownledge about evolution, natural selection, mutation, and the works of the many research sciencists who have spent there lives on the theory of evolution.
Just like you chose to believe the satire as being correct because of your baised views about Religion and your failure to understand the text of the Bible.
Quote:
So, if the Old Testament mentioned God creating Gravity, you will believe in Intelligent Falling.
Someone needs to understand what is stated - not what they wish to believe was stated. Genesis 1:1 says God Created heaven and earth - so therefor he also created gravity at the same time. And no I would not believe in Intelligent Falling for the simple reason as already stated multiple times. The Intelligent Falling Theory is satire based out of context and out of concept of the referenced Biblical passages. Therefor it can only be a false teaching.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Again, get real. THINK! Accept Jesus as a savior to mankind - those that accept his word (as in, love thy enemy), or deny his word ("love thy enemy") and determine what is to be believed versus what a church wants us to believe. Church, and the word of God or Jesus are not synonimous - they need not be the same. Human perception, or the incursion of a person's intent to twist the word of God in their favor or to their philosophy is not the same as the original intent. We tend to over amplify, modify, and take phrases out of context to justify our purpose - well, some do. It is how we as humans try to justify our belief in a GOD. It is how some twist the poetry to justify their own ideas - their political purpose. Hiding behind the cross od Jesus is time honored ideal of scoundrels. IMO.
~D
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Well it seems you might want to talk to some research sciencists and get them on the same sheet of music - since most research is based on forcing the mutation via natural selection
Forcing Mutation via Natural Selection? ~:confused: Mutation is not a function of Natural Selection.
Manipulation of the DNA inside the laboratory is not the random Mutation process that drove Evolution for billions of years.
Quote:
- or as Darwain called it artificial selection because of man's involvement. By the way Planets are not inherently round - they are something else.
So you are saying Humans are behind evolution after all? ~:confused:
The point here is Random Mutation in additionton to Natural Selection DROVE evolution for Billions of years! Not man, not god.
Quote:
Or by the way a researchers words on forced mutation. Several of them in fact
Humans aren't behind Evolution Not God either.
Describe in detail how "forced Mutation", as broad as a 'term' and 'technique' as it gets, factor in billions years of Evolution.
Mimicking natural forces in the laboratory environment doesn't mean Humans are driving evolution.
You are fishing. Did you even read this?
Read the first sentence of this paper you Googled: "Mutations are naturally occurring events in any genome".
What does that mean to you?
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
So in short -
Yes indeed - someone needs to take their own advice. It seems that your own arguement on evolution is a contradiction of published research scientists to include Darwain. Again it seems your knowledge is lacking compared to published scienists and researchers.
Your accepting of the "Intelligent Falling" theory as something that Christian sciencists are advocating is another examble of this. You failed to get your concepts and context of the theory correct and/or straight before you chose to blow over and believe a satire article from The Onion. Yes indeed someone does need to follow their own advice
The rest of your post is the same - accusations and statements that run counter to establish research documents and statements, or is an attempt at misrepresenting the actual research done. Nor does the concept of Intelligent Design say any of the things that you stated. That is all hyperbole on your part.
So Humans created Evolution, that's what you are saying?
Humans inducing mutation is no longer mutation but Gene Manipulation and Gene Therapy etc. You're just pulling words on Google.
Quote:
And you would still be incorrect. Someone needs to heed once again thier own words Understand the basic, rudimentary concepts first before you use it as an argument. I said Intelligent Falling does not follow the concept nor the context of the verse used to support the theory. The actual wording is available multiple times in the posting - but since you seem not to understand or it might be that you refuse acknowledge your own inablity to understand here it is again.
[b]So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
If you say 1+1=3 is correct regardless of the math because of book x and say 1+1=5 is incorrect because it is not in book x is bias.
Quote:
However it seems that you only want to believe what you wish to ackownledge about evolution, natural selection, mutation, and the works of the many research sciencists who have spent there lives on the theory of evolution.
Just like you chose to believe the satire as being correct because of your baised views about Religion and your failure to understand the text of the Bible.
Someone needs to understand what is stated - not what they wish to believe was stated. Genesis 1:1 says God Created heaven and earth - so therefor he also created gravity at the same time. And no I would not believe in Intelligent Falling for the simple reason as already stated multiple times. The Intelligent Falling Theory is satire based out of context and out of concept of the referenced Biblical passages. Therefor it can only be a false teaching.
Speak for yourself. LOL. You have not the slightest idea what Evolution, Natural Selection and Mutation is. Know the rudiments first, I'd say.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
The point here is Random Mutation in additionton to Natural Selection DROVE evolution for Billions of years! Not man, not god.
How do you know? This has to be one of the most inane threads Ive ever seen. The point here is that many claim that god is behind all this. You can post until you die and you cannot prove ot disprove the existance of God. Is it so hard for you to comprehend that he may be behind all of this? Man created different breeds of dogs and cats through inatural selection. "Races" of men occured almost the same way through forced selection in that they interbred with those around them. They didnt tend to travel very far back then. This doesnt mean that the system was not designed by God.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Forcing Mutation via Natural Selection? ~:confused: Mutation is not a function of Natural Selection.
That is not what the researchers state.
Quote:
Manipulation of the DNA inside the laboratory is not the random Mutation process that drove Evolution for billions of years.
Yes I know that - however when I brought up selective breeding which has been done for 1000s of years to modify and change domestic animals you tried to claim that that was not evolution. Again the selective breeding programs on animals is artificial selection which is part of Darwains Theory which he used to prove Natural Selection.
Quote:
So you are saying Humans are behind evolution after all? ~:confused:
No I am saying humans are behind the evolution of certain domestic animals to change them to our benefit. And that this process was used by Darwin to prove Natural Selection - which seems to be your base for the Evolution Arguement.
Quote:
The point here is Random Mutation in additionton to Natural Selection DROVE evolution for Billions of years! Not man, not god.
LOL - are you getting a little frustrated - again the scientists used artificial slection to prove Natural Selection. The scientists use forced mutation to prove the effects of mutation on natural selection. However when you presented your initial arguement - you tried to dismiss this.
Quote:
Humans aren't behind Evolution Not God either.
Again your running counter to how Darwian proved Natural Selection and how man proves evolution. Scientists again use artificial selection to verify natural selection. Man is wholely involved with artifical selection - which makes man play a part in the evolution of some species. Many of our current food crops are part of this process, dogs, cattle, sheep and several other types of animals are all exambles of man's involvement in evolution.
Quote:
Describe in detail how "forced Mutation", as broad as a 'term' and 'technique' as it gets, factor in billions years of Evolution.
ITs really easy to figure out - forced mutation is used to prove how mutation effects natural selection.
Quote:
Mimicking natural forces in the laboratory environment doesn't mean Humans are driving evolution.
Try explaining what has been done with several plant species, and several animal species. Man has driven evolution on certain species.
Quote:
You are fishing. Did you even read this?
Oh I read it - and used the part that supports the part about forced mutation being used to prove the science theory. A subtle point I know - but it requires one to think beyond their own baised view.
Quote:
Read the first sentence of this paper you Googled: "Mutations are naturally occurring events in any genome".
What does that mean to you?
Explained above
Quote:
So Humans created Evolution, that's what you are saying?
Nope - I am saying man has played a part in forcing certain species to evolve.
Quote:
Humans inducing mutation is no longer mutation but Gene Manipulation and Gene Therapy etc. You're just pulling words on Google.
LOL - what do you think Gene Manipulation is? It is causing a mutation for a spefic reason. And yes I use google searches to find the articles and updates from informatin I was taught 20 years ago in biology, zoology, physics and chemistry
Quote:
If you say 1+1=3 is correct regardless of the math because of book x and say 1+1=5 is incorrect because it is not in book x is bias.
doubtful I would ever say something like that - unless I was trying to prove a higher math theory.
Quote:
Speak for yourself. LOL. You have not the slightest idea what Evolution, Natural Selection and Mutation is. Know the rudiments first, I'd say.
Well speak for yourself - I understand much more then the rudiments. I know what artificial selection is and how it was used to prove Natural Selection. That this same artificial selection was the base for how the effects of mutation was on natural selection. However it seems someone else does not.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
That is not what the researchers state.
Yes I know that - however when I brought up selective breeding which has been done for 1000s of years to modify and change domestic animals you tried to claim that that was not evolution. Again the selective breeding programs on animals is artificial selection which is part of Darwains Theory which he used to prove Natural Selection.
No I am saying humans are behind the evolution of certain domestic animals to change them to our benefit. And that this process was used by Darwin to prove Natural Selection - which seems to be your base for the Evolution Arguement.
LOL - are you getting a little frustrated - again the scientists used artificial slection to prove Natural Selection. The scientists use forced mutation to prove the effects of mutation on natural selection. However when you presented your initial arguement - you tried to dismiss this.
Again your running counter to how Darwian proved Natural Selection and how man proves evolution. Scientists again use artificial selection to verify natural selection. Man is wholely involved with artifical selection - which makes man play a part in the evolution of some species. Many of our current food crops are part of this process, dogs, cattle, sheep and several other types of animals are all exambles of man's involvement in evolution.
ITs really easy to figure out - forced mutation is used to prove how mutation effects natural selection.
Try explaining what has been done with several plant species, and several animal species. Man has driven evolution on certain species.
Oh I read it - and used the part that supports the part about forced mutation being used to prove the science theory. A subtle point I know - but it requires one to think beyond their own baised view.
Explained above
Nope - I am saying man has played a part in forcing certain species to evolve.
LOL - what do you think Gene Manipulation is? It is causing a mutation for a spefic reason. And yes I use google searches to find the articles and updates from informatin I was taught 20 years ago in biology, zoology, physics and chemistry
doubtful I would ever say something like that - unless I was trying to prove a higher math theory.
Well speak for yourself - I understand much more then the rudiments. I know what artificial selection is and how it was used to prove Natural Selection. That this same artificial selection was the base for how the effects of mutation was on natural selection. However it seems someone else does not.
Redleg,
Your google Links + Your "input" = Never ending stream of Non Sequitur.
Learn the basics first before moving forward.
Mutation
Natural Selection
Evolution
Are the key term you need to understand firsts.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
How do you know? This has to be one of the most inane threads Ive ever seen. The point here is that many claim that god is behind all this. You can post until you die and you cannot prove ot disprove the existance of God. Is it so hard for you to comprehend that he may be behind all of this? Man created different breeds of dogs and cats through inatural selection. "Races" of men occured almost the same way through forced selection in that they interbred with those around them. They didnt tend to travel very far back then. This doesnt mean that the system was not designed by God.
Because of all the mechanisms of Evolution are random. There's no God input. Just plain nature.
No, no. Breeding doesn't equal Mutation. When you breed that is an artificial way of Natural Selection
Mutation is a chemical process in your DNA. The DNA code is the source of the Proteins. Those proteins then are used by your body. When the DNA changes, that Protein changes as well right?
DNA Mutation ---> (RNA Transcript change) ----> Protein Changes.
Take two plants for example:
Plant 1 mutated and as a result, Growth hormone production are always "on", that means that plant will be huge.
Plant 2 mutated and as a result, Growth hormone production is always "off", that plant will be tiny.
That is Mutation. It is a separate, independent process, that is random.
Now, if that two plants were living side by side, the Giant plant will outcompete the other Dwarf plain in resources such as water, sunlight, etc.
That little dwarf plant will die and as a result, the Giant plant was Naturally Selected.
God did not cause that Giant plant to produce more hormone, no. The Mutation was random and it chemical by nature. God didn't pick that Giant plant either. There's no God in the process.
It is Evolution.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Mutation is random. But the rate of change can be changed according to the environment. It would be interesting to see if any organisms purposely change habitats to increase or decrease the rate of change.
Quote:
Because of all the mechanisms of Evolution are random.
Strictly speaking that is not true when you add in sex. Choosing a mate is a strategic decision not a random one... well with the exception of large quantities of alchohol fueled orgies ~:cheers: .
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Because of all the mechanisms of Evolution are random. There's no God input. Just plain nature.
How do you know this? I consider god to have caused nature to be as it is including evolution. Again you dont know anything of what lies outside our universe or if there a millions of such universes. Science is just mans attempt to uncover the workings of god or nature or whatever you choose to call it. Because we discover how it works has no bearing on whether god created it or not. We do know that man didnt cause all this to happen and thats about all we know.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Redleg,
Your google Links + Your "input" = Never ending stream of Non Sequitur.
Learn the basics first before moving forward.
Mutation
Natural Selection
Evolution
Are the key term you need to understand firsts.
Just so we understand what the term non sequitur means
Quote:
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
Well since you began the non sequitur with your attack on christianity by assuming that some christians were expousing some theory called "Intelligent Falling."
Face it Quietus you believed the satire because it fits within your views of religion. A major Non Sequitur on your part.
But the whole discussion has been very amusing to me because it has shown how ideological baised your views are - you are evening discounting know research and published papers of scientists who have studied evolution by discounting artifical selection - which by the way is the basis of proof for all of Darwains theories and most if not all of all the other theories around evolution.
Yes indeed don't accuse me of non sequitur when you have been doing it the whole time yourself. LOL - so much fun today, sometimes it just amazing how baised we all are.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
How do you know this? I consider god to have caused nature to be as it is including evolution. Again you dont know anything of what lies outside our universe or if there a millions of such universes. Science is just mans attempt to uncover the workings of god or nature or whatever you choose to call it. Because we discover how it works has no bearing on whether god created it or not. We do know that man didnt cause all this to happen and thats about all we know.
Do Lightning hit the same ground over and over and over? The changes in your DNA is as random.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Mutation is random. But the rate of change can be changed according to the environment. It would be interesting to see if any organisms purposely change habitats to increase or decrease the rate of change.
There is one organism that does this all the time. That organism changes its environment to meet its needs, it changes its eating methods and habits to meet its needs, it uses other resources to change itself to meet its needs.
Can you guess which organism does this?
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Do Lightning hit the same ground over and over and over? The changes in your DNA is as random
And your point?
Quote:
Just so we understand what the term non sequitur means
I cant believe you just said that as I just used the same word in another thread ~D
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Mutation is random. But the rate of change can be changed according to the environment. It would be interesting to see if any organisms purposely change habitats to increase or decrease the rate of change.
But the process is still natural, that's the point.
Quote:
Strictly speaking that is not true when you add in sex. Choosing a mate is a strategic decision not a random one... well with the exception of large quantities of alchohol fueled orgies ~:cheers: .
Picking a mate is Natural Selection. You don't choose a Donkey or an Elephant as a mate right?
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
But the process is still natural, that's the point.
Picking a mate is Natural Selection. You don't choose a Donkey or an Elephant as a mate right?
Certainly because it ain't random... it may be natural... but not all of Evolution is random, DNA mutation is random, mate selection is not.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
And your point?
How can you add/link God's intention there if the process is random....?
Random intention is oxymoronic. Random Intelligent Design is oxymoronic.
Quote:
I cant believe you just said that as I just used the same word in another thread ~D
It does make sense though. ~:)
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
But the process is still natural, that's the point.
And it is also done artificially by man by selective breeding on different animal and plant species. Or would you just like to disregard certain new types of plants that have been developed by man. Or will you continue to deny that man has interfered by design in how dogs, cattle, cats, and several other domestic animals have been significantly altered over the years.
Quote:
Picking a mate is Natural Selection. You don't choose a Donkey or an Elephant as a mate right?
Some people have been know to attempt to mate with other species. You know the sheep jokes. LOL
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
There is one organism that does this all the time. That organism changes its environment to meet its needs, it changes its eating methods and habits to meet its needs, it uses other resources to change itself to meet its needs.
Can you guess which organism does this?
I'm not talking about eating and other life things that humans and other self propelled nomadic species use.
I'm thinking of an organism purposely choosing environments based on radiation levels and chemical levels that will effect its DNA rate of mutation. I'm wondering if there are organisms that actively choose an environment to change the rate of mutation.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I'm not talking about eating and other life things that humans and other self propelled nomadic species use.
I'm thinking of an organism purposely choosing environments based on radiation levels and chemical levels that will effect its DNA rate of mutation. I'm wondering if there are organisms that actively choose an environment to change the rate of mutation.
Well man did put himself in space where radiation levels are different.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
How can you add/link God's intention there if the process is random....?
Why cant god add randomness to his creation? In fact its built in. Heck even we can make things that are random. Like random number generators. How does the fact that some things happen randomly prove that god had nothing to do with it? Also it may seem random to us but in fact not be random.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Well man did put himself in space where radiation levels are different.
True.
I was just pondering if there is any micro-organisms that actively change environments to mutate...
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
True.
I was just pondering if there is any micro-organisms that actively change environments to mutate...
You are correct - but then I am only using non sequitur arguements right now like someone accused me of earlier - hopefully he will see the difference in the arguement styles.
~D
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
I was just pondering if there is any micro-organisms that actively change environments to mutate...
Tadpoles ~;)
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Certainly because it ain't random... it may be natural... but not all of Evolution is random, DNA mutation is random, mate selection is not.
Pape,
This is a socially complex gray area. Can we agree, just for argument's sake that it is socially 50/50 but genetically, the mechanistic change is random?
Probability of you meeting your wife the first time.
Probability of you meeting your wife the second time etc.
Probability of your wife attracted to you
Probability of you attracted to your wife
Probabliity of you being a Gigolo
Probability of you being a Rapist
Probability of you using a Sperm bank
Probability of you being in a country at War
Probability of you being Gay
Probability of you being Jail
Probability of you being Sterile
Probability of you being Disabled
etc.
(I hope you didn't mind me using you as an example ~:) )
Pape + Wasabi (random & nonrandom) = Equal Segregation + Independent Assortment + Recombination etc. (random) = Genetic change = Anakin.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Why cant god add randomness to his creation? In fact its built in.
What do you mean creation? Create what part?
Quote:
Heck even we can make things that are random. Like random number generators. How does the fact that some things happen randomly prove that god had nothing to do with it?
God made man in his likeness randomly?
God gave man "free will" randomly?
God picked Earth randomly?
God picked the physical composition of earth randomly?
How about the other planets, how about the moon?
Other Galaxies? Black Holes?
Billions of years of Evolution.
If you want to write a novel, you don't throw in a random letter generator.
If you want to create a computer game, you don't just randomly generate code.
An omnipotent god you are implying would Create life instantenously, perfectly and prevalently.
But no, random Evolution for billions years, organisms are far from perfect and we are alone in our solar system just because the physical conditions on earth is unique. "Life" on earth happened by chance.
Quote:
Also it may seem random to us but in fact not be random.
So you are saying God is really controlling all the thunder, ocean waves, earthquake, sunlight and even Gravity (can you say Intelligent Falling? ~;) )
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Pape + Wasabi (random & nonrandom) = Equal Segregation + Independent Assortment + Recombination etc. (random) = Genetic change = Anakin.
Disagree... neither of us rolled a d20 for the marriage vows... the act of choice makes that part non random. Hence your statement that everything is random is not strictly correct.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Disagree... neither of us rolled a d20 for the marriage vows... the act of choice makes that part non random. Hence your statement that everything is random is not strictly correct.
I've overused the word random in the original premise you called out. I should have said natural. The mechanism for evolution is natural, and random for the very most part.
So again I ask socially 50/50 (random & nonrandom), just for argument's sake, would you agree?
If you didn't meet your wife for example, would you still have Anakin? Meeting your wife is a random probability. As well as the other scenarios I've place. It's a socially complex gray area, as I've said.
If you still disagree, then we agree to disagree then. ~:)
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
I agree that it is natural and random for the most part.
However the man (or really woman) selection process does have some interesting implications.
The menu to select from may be random, but the choice is much less so...
The ability to choose enhances evolution, it doesn't detract from it.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I agree that it is natural and random for the most part.
However the man (or really woman) selection process does have some interesting implications.
The menu to select from may be random, but the choice is much less so...
The ability to choose enhances evolution, it doesn't detract from it.
If you ask me Choice is an even grayer area that's why I use the better word nonrandom.
If you create a machine based on chemicals then would that machine be bound by the chemical rules?
The word "beautiful" has a chemical reaction equivalent, but nobody knows what it is exactly. A painting is "beautiful" only because you have eyes.
That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.
Do you think? Do you reason before reaching a conclusion on something? When making a decision - to you take ownership of that decision?
Or do you just react to the environmental stimulus?
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
If you ask me Choice is an even grayer area that's why I use the better word nonrandom.
If you create a machine based on chemicals then would that machine be bound by the chemical rules?
The word "beautiful" has a chemical reaction equivalent, but nobody knows what it is exactly. A painting is "beautiful" only because you have eyes.
That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.
If the randomness of something was dependent on the randomness of the parts then you would see the following:
The random vibrations of molecules (heat) would make all mechanical mechanisms act randomly. As an analog watch can tell time that is not the case.
The random nature of quantum mechanics should then have an effect on higher order items. As a quartz digital watch does not tell time randomly, it to proves that is not the case.
The reverse is true as well, a perfect die rolls are not dependent on its temperature...well unless it has melted.
Quite often within the hierachy of things something lower down is far more random then then thing it creates. Randomness is not a parent-child relationship, there is no 1:1 correspondence between the randomness of a whole item and the randomness of its components.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
What in hell does randomness in mutation have to do with whether god created evolution? Again in a slot machine theres a random number generator. Now because this is there does that prove a man didnt invent it? How about cards? Plenty of randomness there yet we invented them and all the games that go with them. Did it ever occur to you that thats how God may have designed it? Or maybe evolution is god still messing around ~D
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Well if there is a God we would rate pretty much as a screen saver on the scale of things... maybe a fun demo game... I don't think on the Universe scale of a Game of God we rate as much as even :cry: the TW AI...
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Titled : "Scientific Evidence for Creation", [or justifying weak ideas or how to ignore facts and twist evidence to meet the criteria of creationism]
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/bible-creation.htm
This is a real place, go to the home page and browse about - worth a giggle or two. j/k
http://www.bible.ca
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
From the above site:
Wow.
I like how they try to define the adherance to evolution theory as a religion. Seems like just an attempt to put the "competition" in the same silly category of beliefs as Christianity.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
I like how they try to define the adherance to evolution theory as a religion.
Havent I been saying science is a religion unto itself all along?
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Science is no more a religion then a ruler, pad of paper and a pen are.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Havent I been saying science is a religion unto itself all along?
Wow...And how is that? ~:confused:
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Havent I been saying science is a religion unto itself all along?
How could it be so? Anyone who believes in science as a religion of facts is misguided. Science does not possess many aspects that needs to create a religion. It doesn't have divinity; it doesn't have creation myth, only theories that can always be negated by a better theory; it doesn't need organizations (like organized religion) to "be." Religions fade without worshippers. Science is a collection of facts, theories, datas, etc that, without those who maintain the knowledge, won't die off. Speaking from an entirely pragmatic point of view: we didn't invent science, but we invent religion.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
I really don't know why one who presumes of faith needs evidence. Science requires evidence, religion not. I'm totally with Redleg, tough he believes, and i'll not question him, but the point is that believe for the sake of believing, nothing more.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
I really don't know why one who presumes of faith needs evidence. Science requires evidence, religion not. I'm totally with Redleg, tough he believes, and i'll not question him, but the point is that believe for the sake of believing, nothing more.
You are very close to how I view Religion. It seems that some can not function within two philisophies. The Spirtual and the Physical. Religion is in the spirtual relm of believe - I for instance dont believe that God is pushing me down because some satire states it so.
Nor do I buy into the arguement that Religion is bad because it clouds your ability to rationalize thought in the Physical World.
For instance the discussion with Quietus he is continually trying to link both theories as being based upon the same thing, By linking them to Religion and God. He claims that if one believes in the Genesis Chapter of the Bible - ie Creation - then one by default must believe in the "Intelligence Falling" Satire. He completely misses the reasoning behind why as a Christian I can determine that the Intelligent Falling Theory is a false teaching - because he is determine to believe that since one believes in one theory based upon religion one must believe all theories based upon religion. That is a fallacy - a non sequitur one at that. Using the defination of
Quote:
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
He attempts to recongize it in my arguement about evolution and creation - which does indeed have some non sequitur arguements - but he refuses to see it in his arguement about linking those who believe in the Intelligent Design Theory must also believe in the Intelligent Falling Theory. His conclusion does not follow the premise, he is basing the conclusion solely on the point that if one believes this way then he must also believe this way. That is always a fallacy.
Look at the discussion around evolution - one can play with the words used. Natural Selection, Mutation, Evolution, Artifical Selection, and Selective Breeding. All are mentioned in Darwains theory in one way or another. Two of the terms are what are the basis for Darwain proving his theory of Natural Selection. Go figure. However by dismissing the terms - which is what Quietus has done - well it shows the non sequitur of his evolution arguement since he is dismissing the links established by Darwain and other evolution researchers
One can link Selective Breeding - artifical selection - mutation - natural selection - evolution.
However one can not link Intelligent Design - Genesis to Intelligent Falling - Job and Mark. When Job discusses Human failings and sin, and Mark 15 teaches the errors of false teachings. The two are not linked - any attempts to linking them through religious teachings is a fallacy.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Howabout linking Mark 15 < - > Teaching Intelligent Design in Science. ~:cheers:
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
How could it be so? Anyone who believes in science as a religion of facts is misguided.
By that I mean it has m,any similarities. The big difference between the two as Redleg pomitrd out is that religion tries to explain the spiritual world where as science tries to explain the physical world. Science is based on the idea that we know certain facts. Anything beyond that is a leap of faith in mans ability. As someone pointed out we could be no more than some really advanced version of Sim City for all we know. I have faith in both god and science. Again the two are not mutually exclusive. Jesus even points it out when he says give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto god that which is gods. I take that as pointing out that there are two worlds and two masters we all serve. How many of you deny there is a spirituality to man?
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Science and religion are not diametric opposites... they are more like separate axis... they cross only at the point of the human mind.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Howabout linking Mark 15 < - > Teaching Intelligent Design in Science. ~:cheers:
Mark does not link to Intelligent Design - the only Chapter that links to Intelligent Design is Genesis in my opinion.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Putting Intelligent Design forward as a science would be a false teaching IMDHO.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Putting Intelligent Design forward as a science would be a false teaching IMDHO.
Its a religous science ~D
Again the two should be kept seperate but they should both be respected.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Putting Intelligent Design forward as a science would be a false teaching IMDHO.
Only if its done in the public school systems. I would support those who oppose teaching religious based theories or instruction in a public school system. If I want my child taught religous teaching I will send him to a private school or teach him it myself. Don't confuse my views on religion with being for organized churches - I find most churches have lost the meaning of what the Bible says for their own purpose. You ought to hear what I got to say about the Bapist Church, the Catholic Church, and several other big churches - they have lost the way.
However in a religous context - as a religous teaching Intelligent Design is in line with what Genesis says - ie God created the Heaven and Earth and the creatures upon it.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Teaching Intelligent Design as a religious principle is fine and good.
Teaching Intelligent Design as a validated sciencitific concept is dishonest and contemptable.
Nor is Intelligent Design in line with Genesis. Genesis states that God created nature (hence worshipping nature is not correct, you should worship the Creator of it like one enjoys a painting but admires the painter). Genesis does not say that His design methodology was shake 'n' bake (evolution) or paint by numbers (intelligent design).
Science on the other hand shows that paint by numbers was not required. And that evolution can account for all the forms of life on earth. What evolution does not explain (nor has it have any theoritical bearing on) is the Big Bang. The Big Bang may explain the earliest formation of the Universe.
But the why of The Big Bang? Well that is as accurately explained with religion as science.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Teaching Intelligent Design as a religious principle is fine and good.
yes indeed what I have been saying all along
Quote:
Teaching Intelligent Design as a validated sciencitific concept is dishonest and contemptable.
Notice why I said its a religous based theory best left to being taught by religous people in a religious setting - not in public schools.
Quote:
Nor is Intelligent Design in line with Genesis. Genesis states that God created nature (hence worshipping nature is not correct, you should worship the Creator of it like one enjoys a painting but admires the painter).
Yes it does it say that - it also says something else.
Quote:
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Quote:
Genesis does not say that His design methodology was shake 'n' bake (evolution) or paint by numbers (intelligent design).
Your committing a fallacy here - A does not necessary lead to B. Intelligent Design is not worshipping nature as you allude to above. Nor does it lead to the conclusion your stating here.
Quote:
Science on the other hand shows that paint by numbers was not required. And that evolution can account for all the forms of life on earth.
I had to break this sentence off from your other two. Genesis also accounts for all forms of life on earth. Science shows that life on earth has changed certain species, and that life might have evolved from some primivel (SP) spource and that man himself has also changed certain species. Intelligent Design does not discount science it only discounts the how life evolved from premivel sorce by saying that God created life. It adds science to Genesis to help explain why creatures has evolved in a religious context. And again this is why is should not be taugh in a public school to children or people who do not want to believe the teaching.
Quote:
What evolution does not explain (nor has it have any theoritical bearing on) is the Big Bang. The Big Bang may explain the earliest formation of the Universe.
But the why of The Big Bang? Well that is as accurately explained with religion as science.
Yes indeed - Religion explains it very well. All one has to do is read Genesis 1:1.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Your committing a fallacy here - A does not necessary lead to B. Intelligent Design is not worshipping nature as you allude to above. Nor does it lead to the conclusion your stating here.
I think you are accidentally misreading what I said. Genesis talks about the order of things created. It does not give specifics on how they are created. Did God just stir and bake like a cake. OR did God make the cake by sticking all the atoms together one at a time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I had to break this sentence off from your other two. Genesis also accounts for all forms of life on earth. Science shows that life on earth has changed certain species, and that life might have evolved from some primivel (SP) spource and that man himself has also changed certain species. Intelligent Design does not discount science it only discounts the how life evolved from premivel sorce by saying that God created life. It adds science to Genesis to help explain why creatures has evolved in a religious context. And again this is why is should not be taugh in a public school to children or people who do not want to believe the teaching.
Intelligent Design cannot add science to anything as it is not science in itself.
I don't have a problem with Intelligent Design being a religious theory about Genesis. I still think evolution is a better fit. I don't have an issue with religious classes at public schools. I do have a problem with misnaming something a science when it is not.
I see Intelligent Design as the scientific equivalence of Lola, she walks like a woman but talks like a man. It looks like a science but it ain't if it is examined closely enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Yes indeed - Religion explains it very well. All one has to do is read Genesis 1:1.
And the order of appearance of creatures is in line with evolution too... man is created last.
Plants then water creatures then land creatures then humans.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I think you are accidentally misreading what I said. Genesis talks about the order of things created. It does not give specifics on how they are created. Did God just stir and bake like a cake. OR did God make the cake by sticking all the atoms together one at a time?
That is possible - the misreading of what you said. However lets try this way of explanation instead of direct challenge method. Genesis does indeed only spefically state the order of things - if one takes a literal (SP) interpation of Genesis - one must accept that the earth is only around 7,000 years old. Well in my mind - that just is not acceptable. So the creation of the earth was not 6 human days as man understand time - but 6 Days of how God views time. Since Genesis is written as it relates to God creating the earth - the logic in a regilious sense follows - or at least in my opinion.
So to answer the question posed by you - I would say God created life by assembling life as he saw fit. Then allowed it to grow and develop.
Quote:
Intelligent Design cannot add science to anything as it is not science in itself.
I don't have a problem with Intelligent Design being a religious theory about Genesis. I still think evolution is a better fit. I don't have an issue with religious classes at public schools. I do have a problem with misnaming something a science when it is not.
Well in that we differ slightly - calling it science might be a stretch - but the orginial author of the theory based a lot of his theory on the science methods that makes evolution a science. Should it be taught in the classroom as science though - I would have to agree with you - it does not meet the defination of science because it intermixes religion and science - and that by itself disqualfies it in my opinion as a hard science.
Just off what Quietus wrote I would have to say that science is not doing an adequate job of explaining evolution either. (That is most likely to harsh of a statement - but discounting selective breeding and artifical selection as evolution has a tendency to bring out the worse in me. Darwain used both concepts in his validation and proof of natural selection and mutation.) Evolution is a tricky subject for most - since it goes into not only the development of the species - but it brings into question the validity of Religion.
Quote:
I see Intelligent Design as the scientific equivalence of Lola, she walks like a woman but talks like a man. It looks like a science but it ain't if it is examined closely enough.
Agreed its a religous theory and should be taught as such.
Quote:
And the order of appearance of creatures is in line with evolution too... man is created last.
Plants then water creatures then land creatures then humans.
Isn't just amazing how that worked out in an ancient text.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
If the randomness of something was dependent on the randomness of the parts then you would see the following:
The random vibrations of molecules (heat) would make all mechanical mechanisms act randomly. As an analog watch can tell time that is not the case.
The random nature of quantum mechanics should then have an effect on higher order items. As a quartz digital watch does not tell time randomly, it to proves that is not the case.
The reverse is true as well, a perfect die rolls are not dependent on its temperature...well unless it has melted.
Quite often within the hierachy of things something lower down is far more random then then thing it creates. Randomness is not a parent-child relationship, there is no 1:1 correspondence between the randomness of a whole item and the randomness of its components.
Pape,
The human body isn't like a watch where every parts are connected to each other and accounted for. It's more like cross between a watch and a pinball machine, it isn't perfect, hence it is ordered and disordered.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
I responded to this comment which is incorrect:
Quote:
If you create a machine based on chemicals then would that machine be bound by the chemical rules?
A machine based on chemicals (a virus) is not bound by the randomness of its components.
I was pointing out that the randomness in a part does not make the whole random.
Hence human choice is not neccesarily a random chemical selection. It maybe random as that is the best strategy, it is not random because we have parts that move in Brownian motion.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
You are very close to how I view Religion. It seems that some can not function within two philisophies. The Spirtual and the Physical. Religion is in the spirtual relm of believe - I for instance dont believe that God is pushing me down because some satire states it so.
Nor do I buy into the arguement that Religion is bad because it clouds your ability to rationalize thought in the Physical World.
For instance the discussion with Quietus he is continually trying to link both theories as being based upon the same thing, By linking them to Religion and God. He claims that if one believes in the Genesis Chapter of the Bible - ie Creation - then one by default must believe in the "Intelligence Falling" Satire. He completely misses the reasoning behind why as a Christian I can determine that the Intelligent Falling Theory is a false teaching - because he is determine to believe that since one believes in one theory based upon religion one must believe all theories based upon religion. That is a fallacy - a non sequitur one at that. Using the defination of
Then ~:cheers: for you. What i'm saying is why the religious try to look for the evidence of the "existence" of God, when it's all a question of faith. Jesus resurrected that sunday, i asure you not, but it's faith. Like you said you believe it or you don't. But if you claim that you need some science like teology :dizzy2: , and i'm totally against this one, then you're trying to turn blind beliefs into true knowledge, the first belongs to irrationality and for instance religion (this doesn't mean that religion clouds your understandment, this sentance will be a non sequitor), the second belongs to rational tought, logic, science, the one that derives from observation, analisys and scientific method.
If you wanna believe then do it, but don't ask for evidence, it's absurd.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
By that I mean it has m,any similarities. The big difference between the two as Redleg pomitrd out is that religion tries to explain the spiritual world where as science tries to explain the physical world. Science is based on the idea that we know certain facts. Anything beyond that is a leap of faith in mans ability. As someone pointed out we could be no more than some really advanced version of Sim City for all we know. I have faith in both god and science. Again the two are not mutually exclusive. Jesus even points it out when he says give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto god that which is gods. I take that as pointing out that there are two worlds and two masters we all serve. How many of you deny there is a spirituality to man?
I assure you Orkeny that they're muttally exclusive. Where science puts its foot religion fights to stay, but it cannot support it's arguments so it fades away. Again the explanation term as you used it above, is a very technical one. Explanation derives from certain knowledge (at least as certain as our senses can say and our reason analize, because i'm not disposed to live in a world that reaches the kind of absurd where we cannot believe our senses), it has an explanandum and an explanans. The explanans gives a premise "the metal expands", the explanandum gives conditions (high temperature), others deductions and premises that derive from observation. So the explanation tries to give a "why" to some comprobable fenomenum.
And to make my point clear i will make you the same question i asked to Redleg but with other degree of difficulty. Let's suppose that science in some point in time gives you the answer to everything, and helps you to avoid death and all the fears that you may've. Would you still believe in God? Or suddenly, because God has no more porpose it will fade away like he never "existed"?
Again all of you begin for the "fact" that ideas "exist". But that's another discussion, i think that what i give you is enough.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Let's suppose that science in some point in time gives you the answer to everything, and helps you to avoid death and all the fears that you may've. Would you still believe in God? Or suddenly, because God has no more porpose it will fade away like he never "existed"?
If science gave me all the answers I would know everything and that includes whether or not there is a god so your question is meaningless.
Quote:
If you wanna believe then do it, but don't ask for evidence, it's absurd.
Imagine if scientists had that attitude. If you dont believe dont ask for evidence either.
My someones english is suddenly improving.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
If science gave me all the answers I would know everything and that includes whether or not there is a god so your question is meaningless.
Imagine if scientists had that attitude. If you dont believe dont ask for evidence either.
My someones english is suddenly improving.
No it's not meaningless. You don't comprehend my question. You now believe that God exists, blindly, you put it behind natural fenomenums and behind evolution. But let's suppose that science gives you all the answers, then where is your God? One that is onmiscient, all powerfull and is on everything, suddenly it's...nothing. My point is demonstrate that you use the idea of God in an utilitarist way, while you have questions and have fears God "exists" but when you don't need it anymore it just banishes. Do you understand my question?
What attitude are you talking about? Don't manipulate my worlds, i'm talking of that that you call "kingdom of heaven", "spiritual world", i'm not talking about real life. In real life you can do both with out problems, believe and know, in spiritual life you only need belief, because if you want more than that, i'm sorry to dissapoint you, but evidence in religion. :dizzy2:
Yes my english is improving a little after all this post. I wish that you talk to me in my language.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
But let's suppose that science gives you all the answers, then where is your God? One that is onmiscient, all powerfull and is on everything, suddenly it's...nothing.
Again if science could prove to me god didnt exist I could not believe in god. I dont choose to believe or not believe in something .
Also thats a mighty big supposition. Suppose god came down and performed a few miracles for you and told you science was a bunch of crap. Would you still back science?
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Again if science could prove to me god didnt exist I could not believe in god. I dont choose to believe or not believe in something .
Also thats a mighty big supposition. Suppose god came down and performed a few miracles for you and told you science was a bunch of crap. Would you still back science?
I'll make my question more direct then: Do you use God to give you some porpose or is God that gives you the porpose?
That will never happen. An idea cannot take form by simple transmition of toughts. So as God doesn't have any fisical form i doubt that he comes down and talks to me. Please, don't tell that you believe, after all science and man has done, and after what your senses can perceive that God has an physical body.
That's all the point, setting a point that is possible. But against you may think, the science cannot prove the existence of God, because God is not real, it's ideal, it's like trying to prove the existence of the number 1 (wich happens to have an utalitarist and practical function), there's no point in trying to look for the existence of 1, you won't find a big one hidden somewhere that sais "i'm the number one, and when you humans invented me, you were really basing it on facts". The creation of the number 1for it's practical proposes was created based on observation as any idea on matematics, so you can do calculations in abstract. The idea of God was created exactly the same way, but the difference with the number 1, is that all those facts observated had another practical and true explanation that actually gives results in reallity. So not science will never say "hey look Gawain, here i've the proof that God doesn't exist".
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Porpose is a close cousin to dolphin.
Purpose is why we do something.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I responded to this comment which is incorrect:
A machine based on chemicals (a virus) is not bound by the randomness of its components.
I was pointing out that the randomness in a part does not make the whole random.
Hence human choice is not neccesarily a random chemical selection. It maybe random as that is the best strategy, it is not random because we have parts that move in Brownian motion.
Pape,
Organic chemistry has specific rules, especially inside the human body (or a virus) that is a machine and complement of closed and open systems.
We're not talking about a stable piece of inorganic molecule here such as a watch.
And I didn't say "randomness", I said "Choice". A better word for choice is "nonrandom" due to the chemical rules. If you call it a "choice" you're neglecting chemical rules! ~:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
If you ask me Choice is an even grayer area that's why I use the better word nonrandom.
If you create a machine based on chemicals then would that machine be bound by the chemical rules?
The word "beautiful" has a chemical reaction equivalent, but nobody knows what it is exactly. A painting is "beautiful" only because you have eyes.
That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
I'll make my question more direct then: Do you use God to give you some porpose or is God that gives you the porpose?
That will never happen. An idea cannot take form by simple transmition of toughts. So as God doesn't have any fisical form i doubt that he comes down and talks to me. Please, don't tell that you believe, after all science and man has done, and after what your senses can perceive that God has an physical body.
I have no idea of what god looks like or is and neither do you or anybody else on these boards. Is his form really that important?
Quote:
So not science will never say "hey look Gawain, here i've the proof that God doesn't exist".
So then your question cannot ever possibly be asked as science will never no everything.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
What is brought up in the discussion, yet ignored - is the philosophical question, "Did God create man, or did man create God?"
A comprehensive study of the mythologies of man demonstrates that ancient man needed a means to define his role in his universe and to explain the many things of nature that he did not understand. Along came theorists that through their observation proclaimed; "the world is round, not flat", "the earth revolves around the sun, and is not the center of the universe", "the earth is billions of years old", "man evolved from apes (and is still evolving)", etc. The church found all of these items to be blasphemous, and prosecuted or denied the namesayers as being heretics (and ignorant, and godless, and controlled by satan's minions).
For some churches, if one doesnot take the bible literally they are ignorant and doomed to hell. For others, the bible is the guide line for teaching morality and human values, and was a poetic means to explain creation to the ancients (that is Hebrews).
So, which came first? The chicken or the egg?
What is correct Science, or Religious pragmatism (dogma)?
For me, they can live side by side. If one can accept that one is based on physical observation and scientific method; the other faith. Faith that a supremebeing is wise enough to stir the pot and allow it to brew on its own - without its interference. Or, we simply accept that we were made from mud (as in 50+ religions and myths) and were not an awe inspiring method of evolvement.
:balloon2:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/dna_history.html
Type in the search, creationism, or intelligent design - you'll get what you want, regardless of your attitude.
http://www.creationministries.org/faq.asp
http://www.proofofcreationism.com/book_overview.php
:book: THINK! It only hurts a little ... honest.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
For me, they can live side by side. If one can accept that one is based on physical observation and scientific method; the other faith. Faith that a supremebeing is wise enough to stir the pot and allow it to brew on its own - without its interference. Or, we simply accept that we were made from mud (as in 50+ religions and myths) and were not an awe inspiring method of evolvement.
For once I agree with Kafir.
Quote:
What is brought up in the discussion, yet ignored - is the philosophical question, "Did God create man, or did man create God?"
Thats the question that man has asked from the beggining of time and shall be asked until the end of time. Again no one here knows the answer.
.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
What is brought up in the discussion, yet ignored - is the philosophical question, "Did God create man, or did man create God?"
That is correct - but the individual who started the thread was out to prove by arguement that God does not exist - not who created whom.
Quote:
A comprehensive study of the mythologies of man demonstrates that ancient man needed a means to define his role in his universe and to explain the many things of nature that he did not understand. Along came theorists that through their observation proclaimed; "the world is round, not flat", "the earth revolves around the sun, and is not the center of the universe", "the earth is billions of years old", "man evolved from apes (and is still evolving)", etc. The church found all of these items to be blasphemous, and prosecuted or denied the namesayers as being heretics (and ignorant, and godless, and controlled by satan's minions).
For some churches, if one doesnot take the bible literally they are ignorant and doomed to hell. For others, the bible is the guide line for teaching morality and human values, and was a poetic means to explain creation to the ancients (that is Hebrews).
Your getting very close to how I precieve the bible and religion.
Quote:
So, which came first? The chicken or the egg?
How I hate chickens - but my belief system points to the chicken came first.
Quote:
What is correct Science, or Religious pragmatism (dogma)?
And why can they not have equal value to an individual? (This is not address to Kafir - because he states his opinion later on in this post.) That is Science and Religion. I don't believe in dogma from any church.
Now I think some who only believe strict church dogma - I am not sure how you wanted to use the word - but dogma relies on a church proclaimation - which sets the followers of that church to false teaching because they allow on the church to tell them what the bible means. Man is fallible, dogma coming from a church authority will always have problems.
Quote:
For me, they can live side by side. If one can accept that one is based on physical observation and scientific method; the other faith. Faith that a supremebeing is wise enough to stir the pot and allow it to brew on its own - without its interference. Or, we simply accept that we were made from mud (as in 50+ religions and myths) and were not an awe inspiring method of evolvement.
Yes indeed the two philisophies can indeed fit and live side by side.
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
How I hate chickens - but my belief system points to the chicken came first.
This one depends on your belief system:
Evolutionist: the egg must have come first. Chickens evolved from other birds in the same way that modern man evolved from apes. There must therefore have been a 'first chicken' which provides the missing link between the 'primate' of a chicken and what would be a acceptance of a modern chicken. This chicken will have hatched from an egg, however the bird that layed the egg will not have been a chicken, but rather an 'ape-chicken' if you will.
Creationist: the chicken came first. God created the first chickens. These chickens reproduced creating an egg or two.
I thank you :bow:
-
Re: Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
So, which came first? The chicken or the egg?
:book: THINK! It only hurts a little ... honest.
The proto-chicken layed the first chicken egg.
