I provided the quote, and over 800,000 links for your pleasure.Well, since you are new to the CAFs I’ll cut you some slack.
But it is considered bad form to make a claim here, and then when asked to back it up say, “Look it up yourself.”
The proper thing to do when asked to provide a source, when one has made a claim, is to…
provide a source.
Yes, indeed. That seems to be a pretty valid request, no?
God’s DNA? How can an immaterial person have material DNA?
Indeed.
Good Evening Ed West: Knowing how gravity works nor how much thrust it takes to move a ball through a hoop nor travelling to the moon tells anything about what the world is. These are simply processes. Know one knows how to make their thyroid gland work or their hears to beat, but they do it without any knowledge of how to do so. They are simply processes and they don’t explain anything. I stand by the idea that the world could be anything, and saying so doesn’t ignore any established facts. It simply acknowledges that there is little information as to what the world actually is or what it means, or if dreams are hallucinations we have in private and the waking experience is simply a mass hallucination, or if one is real or the other is not. No such things are known for a fact.
I assure you, that the person who takes life to Mars, will be a real and material person, I also assure you, that if this life can be engineered to flourish, that humanity is everything that has been attributed to God. Then since we are in his image, this is actually quite logical.God’s DNA? How can an immaterial person have material DNA?
Then the question should be asked why octopi and squid are not being baptized as we speak. Surely, the issue is not solved merely by a proposition such as: "If it has a soul, then it is eligible for baptism.”
This is edwest2’s answer when asked “Do you believe that the Pope is wrong for endorsing evolutionary science then?”
I also assure you that if anything is true, the above isn’t.
It’s more complicated than that, one theory is that the Vatican has knowledge of ET, and knows that the time will arrive, when they are known, and the Pope just wants to have a jumpstart so to speak. However on another level, we will be sending people to Mars one day, and there may be a first person born there, who technically would be a Martian.
The above pretty much describes every post on this thread, including your own.
:yawn:
You sound just like a teacher admonishing a naughty pupil! Do you really think such discourtesy is appropriate on a philosophy forum? :ehh:
Do you believe natural causes** alone** can cater for every contingency? Doesn’t your hypothesis rule out divine intervention whenever there is going to be a natural disaster? Doesn’t it exclude miracles in answers to prayer, thereby rejecting the teaching of Jesus?
God does not supersede natural causes. He supplements them as one would expect from a loving Father who cares for all His children. If He never intervenes how **on earth **does He differ from the deists’ God?
To be precise, evolution is designed by God. The pejorative term “tinkering” begs the question. Life on earth has almost become extinct several times. Was it solely by chance that it survived?Do you believe God would do absolutely nothing if He knew every living creature is going to be killed by human or natural causes against His Will? Why does Jesus ask us to pray to be delivered from evil if the Father never does anything to help us? Why does the Church require evidence of miracles before a saint is canonised? And why would God never work a miracle when it is not requested?
He promised us that God answers our prayers in this life as well as the next. Otherwise why would He tell us to pray “Give us** this day** our daily bread”?
Speechless huh? God will do that when he makes an appearance…!
Ignoring new information generally does not remove or get rid of cognitive dissonance since the new information could not, logically, be the source of existing dissonance. One would have to deny what is already known to get rid of dissonance.
True, I will be speechless when God arrives, but I won’t :yawn:
I don’t want you to misunderstand the :yawn:. It was not directed at you personally.
The problem arises when we insert a master being with a master plan into the story. I think that we insert a master being into the story out of desperation and existential anxiety. We want something to be in charge and we want it to have the power to keep us from slipping into eternal nothingness when we die. And it is this type of thinking that leads us to fretting over the complications that pop up in the storylines we have created. Storylines like Intelligent Design and the like. It is entirely possible of course that there is a God. I tend to think so, but I’m not offering that as truth. But I also tend to think that God is simply kicking the can down the road and learning as it goes. I don’t think it has a plan or ever had a plan, and the purpose of all existence is simply experience. It seems to crave experience, and that could be our purpose. Experience. The whole thing is probably not all that complicated.
Agreed.
Which is anticipated and predicted by evolution. Essentially those cave bacteria were repeating the Luria–Delbrück experiment. Mutations are random. That means that a random mutation in a cave can give immunity to an antibiotic that is not present in the cave. That is what “random” means. Mutations do not appear in response to need, they appear randomly.
No we have not. You have not shown your calculations or a reference to your calculations. You are relying on numbers, and you have shown us neither the numbers, nor the calculations used to derive those numbers. As I have said before, far too many creationist calculation of odds use an incorrect model of evolution, which omits natural selection. Since I have not seen your calculation, I cannot know whether or not your calculation has made the same fatal error.
Junk DNA is another creationist lie you are being told. Currently about 5% of the human genome directly codes for proteins. Another 10-15% is the controls and switches which tell the coding genes when to switch on and when to switch off. Another 15% is conserved, which means it very probably has a function, but we do not know what its function is yet. 50% is known to be junk. Experiments on mice and other organisms have removed it, without affecting the animal. The remainder of our DNA is in the “don’t know” category – it may be junk, it may have a function. An ID lab could be working on that part of the genome to determine if it has a function.
Your first prediction contains one of those falsehoods that I was talking about earlier, “irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found.” IC systems can evolve, and so can be found in the evolution/descent model. Professor Behe agrees that IC can evolve. IC cannot evolve by the direct route, but it can evolve by indirect routes – like the scaffolding we were discussing earlier.
