R
redhen
Guest
There are several transitional fossils. This is fairly recent discovery from the Canadian artic; meet Tiktaalik roseae.
tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
- Status
tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I don’t have time to answer in full now, However I would just to point out i was talking about philosophy as a mean of understanding our universe and futhering the knowledge of man kind. In this respect it is wishy washy and meaningless. It is utterly redundant when compared to the scientific method.
Also if you want me to address claims like “European Timber Wolf and the marsupial wolf of Australia are basically anatomically identical” then please point me to the PEER REVIEWED research. You saying they are identical doesn’t make it so , and saying they have “little to no genetic relation.” is absurd. All life is genetically related.
Evolution says NOTHING about how we should treat other life or people, it is just a theory that explains the fact of evolution. I wish you people would grasp that small fact if nothing else. :banghead:
G
gamorgan
Guest
Code:
Experiments on the fruit fly *Drosophila melanogaster* were first performed by (ironically) Theodosius Dobzhansky, professor of zoology at Columbia University (1940-1962). Similar experiments were also performed and confirmed by Harvard's Ernst Mayer.
This fly, known commonly as the vinegar fly, has a mutant recessive gene that causes blindness in a child which inherits a double recessive from its parents. It simply is born without eyes. When isolated sections of the fly are inter-bred with one another, with no outside breeding with those who have the dominant gene which would override the recessive mutant gene, typically within three generations the flies will again have eyes, spontaneously having the dominant gene needed to overcome the recessive mutant gene, by no inheritance from its parents (both having double recessive).
Also ironically, the intention of these experiments was initially to breed strands of the fly with more or less than its typical number of bristles, or other characteristics, so as to attempt to overcome the limitations of genetic homeostasis with a viable strand in an observable way. However, consistently, in or around thirty generations, each line became infertile, a common issue with genetic variation and isolation. This throws a problem into the wheels of neo-Darwinism because gradual mutations are supposed to be the vehicle behind the emergence of new species. However, the more isolated genetically a species becomes, either by force in experiments, or by interbreeding because of environmental limitations, almost invariable infertile. This is largely because, as is well known, each gene does not have a single correlate in anatomical definition, but has connections to several things. Changing one screws with all kinds of things in the organism.
When I pointed out the genetic separation of marsupial mammals in Australia versus their curiously similar European correlates, I hardly meant to make the foolish assertion that they were completely unrelated. You are straw-manning my arguments, once again showing yourself to not be interested in seriously considering alternative views (I do not speak for everyone on this blog). It means that the uniformitarian model of geological shift demands that these mammals were separated some 60 million years ago, and yet, by the frankly miraculous dint of luck evolved into nearly identical mammals is almost humorous, I suppose because of similarity in environment? Ok. This point is about the consistency of a given model. What is required by means of a peer-review? I did not relay an experiment, but two points generally accepted as fact.
G
gamorgan
Guest
The claim that science is a superior method to philosophy demonstrates that you have obviously never practiced genuine philosophy once, and so do not understand that they are not competing methods of knowledge, but have different levels and objects of interest. Science is a process of gathering data; human beings interpret the meaning of data. This is an inherently philosophical task. Whatever model of the universe you give, no matter how convinced you are that the evidence backs it up, is an inherently philosophical move. Philosophy is a process of refining our views of the world and ourselves through critical thought and continual encounter with other views and new experiences. Your narrow minded understanding of philosophy as an attempt at gaining specific knowledge about observable phenomenon without observing them is identical to the superstitious understanding of the pre-Socratics and shows again a straw-man at work. That or you are a logical positivist, in which case I suggest you confess to your mother that her affection for you is linguistically meaningless. I reject your claim, therefore, that philosophy is wishy-washy and vain for understanding the human being. It is more a fundamental mode of thought than science.
The final claim that Darwinism has or makes no ethical claims or implications is also definitely false. If this were so, it would have no impact on the decisions we make in our daily lives. Is this your view? Such an understanding would be lamentably impotent. In addition to this, its connections to the laissez-fare attitude of colonial Britain have been demonstrated in sociology with great penetration.
Reply at your convenience, but I must confess that I feel you have little right to be frustrated except with yourself.
Oh and can you also do me the favor of backing up all of your claims with peer-reviewed references?
GM
The final claim that Darwinism has or makes no ethical claims or implications is also definitely false. If this were so, it would have no impact on the decisions we make in our daily lives. Is this your view? Such an understanding would be lamentably impotent. In addition to this, its connections to the laissez-fare attitude of colonial Britain have been demonstrated in sociology with great penetration.
Code:
You fail to understand the meaning of the question of being, despite its having been reiterated. Science can never explain why there is something rather than nothing because it must always take a given object as its object of investigation, presupposing all along the way that things exist as merely “present-at-hand,” as Heidegger put it. Existence must always be presupposed from the scientific perspective; it can never be explained. It therefore cannot answer this final question, let alone provide any values as its explicit task is to avoid such. It therefore cannot answer ultimate questions. This is because each dimension of reality (matter, life, self), is a leap in itself which cannot be reduced to the rules of the simpler dimension (which way a leaf grows cannot be explained by physical vectors, the decisions a person makes in his life cannot be reduced to biological impulses, but move through a personal center psychologically). This means there are several “big bangs” in our natural history, each one again asking the question of being. Invoking evidence is an exorcise in vanity in the face of this question.Oh and can you also do me the favor of backing up all of your claims with peer-reviewed references?
GM
G
gamorgan
Guest
Yes, I debated with myself as to whether I should have spoken on this point because of the limited space of the post and because it is such a hot-spot for special creationists trying to advance their ideology against their competitors. Regardless of whether this or that species which seems to make the leap from one observable species to another easier to conceive shows up in the fossil record, the demand for them outnumbers the actual examples which have not been refuted as either fraud or irresponsible reconstructions. Why is australopithecus still represented with straight human-like wrists in the London Natural History Museum when it has been shown that this was an ape-like creature by Zuckermann’s studies? Finding some just doesn’t cut it. The gaps are so very sore. The fossil record shows more stability in the phylum than instability generally, and demands a new outlook. Further, even in the case of Tiktaalik, appearance isn’t sufficient; it must be shown that it is indeed genetically between acanthostega gunnari and eusthenopteron foordi. Similarity in neck construction is not sufficient in itself. More voices are complaining publicly about the way new problematic evidence is ignored and those who suggest something different are basically shunned. The currently held views are not so strongly grounded as it is touted, and I would like to see other theories considered.
Thanks for the link, though, an interesting page.
GM
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Ouch, i think you need a course in genetics, genes have different variants, there called alleles. **Again link me to the peer reviewed papers. **
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
**The claim that science is a superior method to philosophy demonstrates that you have obviously never practiced genuine philosophy once, and so do not understand that they are not competing methods of knowledge, but have different levels and objects of interest. Science is a process of gathering data; human beings interpret the meaning of data. This is an inherently philosophical task. Whatever model of the universe you give, no matter how convinced you are that the evidence backs it up, is an inherently philosophical move. Philosophy is a process of refining our views of the world and ourselves through critical thought and continual encounter with other views and new experiences. Your narrow minded understanding of philosophy as an attempt at gaining specific knowledge about observable phenomenon without observing them is identical to the superstitious understanding of the pre-Socratics and shows again a straw-man at work. That or you are a logical positivist, in which case I suggest you confess to your mother that her affection for you is linguistically meaningless. I reject your claim, therefore, that philosophy is wishy-washy and vain for understanding the human being. It is more a fundamental mode of thought than science. **
Cool. lets compare results
**The final claim that Darwinism has or makes no ethical claims or implications is also definitely false. If this were so, it would have no impact on the decisions we make in our daily lives. Is this your view? Such an understanding would be lamentably impotent. In addition to this, its connections to the laissez-fare attitude of colonial Britain have been demonstrated in sociology with great penetration.
**
Not sure what this Darwinism is??? IS it like Einsteinism??? Jesusism??? Newtonism???
**
You fail to understand the meaning of the question of being, despite its having been reiterated. Science can never explain why there is something rather than nothing because it must always take a given object as its object of investigation, presupposing all along the way that things exist as merely “present-at-hand,” as Heidegger put it. Existence must always be presupposed from the scientific perspective; it can never be explained. It therefore cannot answer this final question, let alone provide any values as its explicit task is to avoid such. It therefore cannot answer ultimate questions. This is because each dimension of reality (matter, life, self), is a leap in itself which cannot be reduced to the rules of the simpler dimension (which way a leaf grows cannot be explained by physical vectors, the decisions a person makes in his life cannot be reduced to biological impulses, but move through a personal center psychologically). This means there are several “big bangs” in our natural history, each one again asking the question of being. Invoking evidence is an exorcise in vanity in the face of this question.**
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
**
Oh and can you also do me the favor of backing up all of your claims with peer-reviewed references? **
Sure!!!
. What would you like me to back up :knight2:
Cool. lets compare results
**The final claim that Darwinism has or makes no ethical claims or implications is also definitely false. If this were so, it would have no impact on the decisions we make in our daily lives. Is this your view? Such an understanding would be lamentably impotent. In addition to this, its connections to the laissez-fare attitude of colonial Britain have been demonstrated in sociology with great penetration.
**
Not sure what this Darwinism is??? IS it like Einsteinism??? Jesusism??? Newtonism???
**
You fail to understand the meaning of the question of being, despite its having been reiterated. Science can never explain why there is something rather than nothing because it must always take a given object as its object of investigation, presupposing all along the way that things exist as merely “present-at-hand,” as Heidegger put it. Existence must always be presupposed from the scientific perspective; it can never be explained. It therefore cannot answer this final question, let alone provide any values as its explicit task is to avoid such. It therefore cannot answer ultimate questions. This is because each dimension of reality (matter, life, self), is a leap in itself which cannot be reduced to the rules of the simpler dimension (which way a leaf grows cannot be explained by physical vectors, the decisions a person makes in his life cannot be reduced to biological impulses, but move through a personal center psychologically). This means there are several “big bangs” in our natural history, each one again asking the question of being. Invoking evidence is an exorcise in vanity in the face of this question.**
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
**
Oh and can you also do me the favor of backing up all of your claims with peer-reviewed references? **
Sure!!!
. What would you like me to back up :knight2:
G
gamorgan
Guest
Though this entire discussion about particular evidence on this or that matter completely misses the point I attempted to make, nevertheless here are some references which I apologize for not having provided in full initially.
It’s very easy to find any number of articles online that discuss these experiments. They are well known and documented. I’m not sure what exactly your argument is now.
Here are some articles I found that deal with the experiments. Since I haven’t read them all, I council you to read Dobzhansky’s own writing on the matter in Heredity and the Nature of Men (1964), and Genetics and the Origin of Species (1951). It is also described exhaustively in Lords of the Fly by Robert Kohler. I believe Ernst Mayr also discusses the experiments in Systematics and the Origin of Species from the Viewpoint of a Zoologist, but I don’t recall, and I have grown weary with you so as to look it up again. Since I didn’t discover the experiment in online peer reviews, I will leave you to your resources to either 1) do an Internet search yourself, as articles on the experiments proliferate, or 2) stumble into a library. I am surprised, after all, that you haven’t heard of these experiments, as they are well known. Each of the works mentioned are written by very convinced and well accredited Darwinists, which I hardly mind at all. The likes of you is an entirely different story.
Here’s a link to a review of Dobzhansky’s work.
jstor.org/pss/2818939
Here are a few articles I came across by dint of chance, though I haven’t read through, on these experiments from different perspectives. I reiterate, I did not learn of the experiments via online reviews, but in Dobzhansky and Kohler. You want the scoop, go to the library.
books.google.com/books?id=Bgj9FnwlgkIC&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=Experiments+on+Drosophila+by+Dobzhansky&source=bl&ots=OUH7DYRkYp&sig=ZmPBdGZlWYcK8Qw1xcSFp9hvhRU&hl=en&ei=KVFsStB0nqK2B5Cq-ZoB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
genetics.org/cgi/reprint/55/1/141
jstor.org/pss/87705
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1209431
What exactly do I fail to understand about alleles? What’s so hard to understand about a fly inheriting a recessive allele from one part of each of its heterozygote parents and being bred with another fly also having a double recessive combination? Drosophila is diploid, meaning it takes two sets of alleles, represented by your high school Punnett square. How hard is that to understand? When the dominant gene is bred out by controlled breeding, and the offspring are interbred (HAVING ONLY DOUBLE RECESSIVE), the offspring will again have eyes within a few generations.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Men.
Ibid, Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press: New York, 1951.
Robert Kohler, Lords of the Fly, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1994.
Possibly, though I don’t remember:
Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species from the Viewpoint of a Zoologist, Harvard University Press: 1999.
You snooze at my point about the problems related with the epistemology and philosophy of science because you haven’t studied or reflected sufficiently to understand.
Here is a place to start your homework:
Hilary Putnam, Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Even Karl Popper in Unended Quest, perhaps the greatest philosopher of science in the last decade, admitted that Darwinism is not ideally falsifiable, though it has great explanatory power. I agree, but when its explanatory power doesn’t reach far enough, it must give space for further investigation. You do not appreciate the subtlety of my points at all.
I’m done. You haven’t listened to a word I’ve said but have been running on auto pilot stymieing everything which crosses your path. You are too immature and too unaware of the times and the literature. Further posts will not be responded to.
Take care, and perhaps in the future,
GM
A
AndyHolland
Guest
An interesting insite/experiment into Darwinian Malthusian Doctrine and equally preferencing death and life has just occurred in the world economy.
Credit Default Swaps en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap
Credit Default Swaps en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
There will not be one gene for the eyes. There will be multiple genes. Gene interactions are extreamly complex it is not just a case of high your school Punnett square. Also what % of the flys in the 3rd generation got there sight back? If a gene can mutate in one direction it can mutate in the other.
I really am lost to why you see this as a problem for evolution? What is your hypothesis?
Your claim that this research falsified evolution is a little absurd.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
**The claim that science is a superior method to philosophy demonstrates that you have obviously never practiced genuine philosophy once, and so do not understand that they are not competing methods of knowledge, but have different levels and objects of interest. Science is a process of gathering data; human beings interpret the meaning of data. This is an inherently philosophical task. Whatever model of the universe you give, no matter how convinced you are that the evidence backs it up, is an inherently philosophical move. Philosophy is a process of refining our views of the world and ourselves through critical thought and continual encounter with other views and new experiences. Your narrow minded understanding of philosophy as an attempt at gaining specific knowledge about observable phenomenon without observing them is identical to the superstitious understanding of the pre-Socratics and shows again a straw-man at work. That or you are a logical positivist, in which case I suggest you confess to your mother that her affection for you is linguistically meaningless. I reject your claim, therefore, that philosophy is wishy-washy and vain for understanding the human being. It is more a fundamental mode of thought than science. **
Would you care compare results? What science has done for us against philosophy?
The final claim that Darwinism has or makes no ethical claims or implications is also definitely false. If this were so, it would have no impact on the decisions we make in our daily lives. Is this your view? Such an understanding would be lamentably impotent. In addition to this, its connections to the laissez-fare attitude of colonial Britain have been demonstrated in sociology with great penetration.
Im not sure what darwinism is, if you are refering to the theory of evolution then you are way off the mark with your understanding of the word theory.
You fail to understand the meaning of the question of being, despite its having been reiterated. Science can never explain why there is something rather than nothing
How do you know it never will?
**
because it must always take a given object as its object of investigation, presupposing all along the way that things exist as merely “present-at-hand,” as Heidegger put it. Existence must always be presupposed from the scientific perspective; it can never be explained.**
Ours is explained.
It therefore cannot answer this final question, let alone provide any values as its explicit task is to avoid such. It therefore cannot answer ultimate questions. This is because each dimension of reality (matter, life, self), is a leap in itself which cannot be reduced to the rules of the simpler dimension (which way a leaf grows cannot be explained by physical vectors, the decisions a person makes in his life cannot be reduced to biological impulses, but move through a personal center psychologically). This means there are several “big bangs” in our natural history, each one again asking the question of being. Invoking evidence is an exorcise in vanity in the face of this question.
And unfounded speculation is pointless.
**Reply at your convenience, but I must confess that I feel you have little right to be frustrated except with yourself. **
Im not frustrated.
**
Oh and can you also do me the favor of backing up all of your claims with peer-reviewed references? **
Certainly, which claim would you like me to back up?
Would you care compare results? What science has done for us against philosophy?
The final claim that Darwinism has or makes no ethical claims or implications is also definitely false. If this were so, it would have no impact on the decisions we make in our daily lives. Is this your view? Such an understanding would be lamentably impotent. In addition to this, its connections to the laissez-fare attitude of colonial Britain have been demonstrated in sociology with great penetration.
Im not sure what darwinism is, if you are refering to the theory of evolution then you are way off the mark with your understanding of the word theory.
You fail to understand the meaning of the question of being, despite its having been reiterated. Science can never explain why there is something rather than nothing
How do you know it never will?
**
because it must always take a given object as its object of investigation, presupposing all along the way that things exist as merely “present-at-hand,” as Heidegger put it. Existence must always be presupposed from the scientific perspective; it can never be explained.**
Ours is explained.
It therefore cannot answer this final question, let alone provide any values as its explicit task is to avoid such. It therefore cannot answer ultimate questions. This is because each dimension of reality (matter, life, self), is a leap in itself which cannot be reduced to the rules of the simpler dimension (which way a leaf grows cannot be explained by physical vectors, the decisions a person makes in his life cannot be reduced to biological impulses, but move through a personal center psychologically). This means there are several “big bangs” in our natural history, each one again asking the question of being. Invoking evidence is an exorcise in vanity in the face of this question.
And unfounded speculation is pointless.
**Reply at your convenience, but I must confess that I feel you have little right to be frustrated except with yourself. **
Im not frustrated.
**
Oh and can you also do me the favor of backing up all of your claims with peer-reviewed references? **
Certainly, which claim would you like me to back up?
T
twb1621
Guest
Charles, have you gone over those references I offered you yet? I am waiting to hear your thoughts and considerations.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
No, but i will over the next few days.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
It turns out the gene in question is PAX6 and it is actually evidence for evolution.
A
AndyHolland
Guest
Actually, its evidence for very advanced molecular genetic mechanics.It turns out the gene in question is PAX6 and it is actually evidence for evolution.
Lu:6:2: And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
Lu:6:3: And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
Lu:6:4: How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
Lu:6:5: And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Lu:6:6: And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
Lu:6:7: And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.
Lu:6:8: But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.
Lu:6:9: Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?
Lu:6:10: And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
Lu:6:11: And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.
2Pe:1:19: We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe:1:20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe:1:21: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
It is evidence for common descent.
A
AndyHolland
Guest
Common ascent - you must admit for example, that a human eye is far more sophisticated mechanistically than the eye of a worm.
Intelligence simple and compound (Ancient Greek description of God) raised Adam from the dust of the ground.
It you pose a material theory to explain things, you must be consistent with material facts and reality. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction etc… Mathematics, probability, chemistry, mechanics, electrodynamics all have to be consistent within a scientific framework. Organizational, informational and energetic entropy are very real and must be accounted for.
The problem for the strict Darwinian biologist is that we see more and more beauty and structure in living things and realize the improbability of that occuring without Intelligence simple and compound as causal. Statistics works against randomness as causal very quickly.
For example, Einstein expressed belief in the Supreme being (e.g. Intelligence, simple and compound) for a reason. He crunched the numbers, and realized the beauty of life does not happen unless there is a great and eternal order to the universe. That does not say he believed in a personal God, he had the more ancient Greek form in mind, but it was when the Greeks saw all their forms in the Christian Triune God that they began to seek the personal God.
It follows, if the universe has attained to intelligence then it has an intelligent cause. If the universe has attained to person, it has a personal God. Entropy (death) is real and is trampled down by Jesus Christ who has trampled down death by death.
Its the duty of a true scientist to investigate this with dispassion and facts.
As to Sagan - consider that movie and book about encountering other beings more sophisticated. How much more elegant, simple and beautiful for God to become one of us so that we might encounter him face to face.I don’t prefer delusion either. Conceit is delusion and pride is delusion. Facts are with the Christians if anyone would care to delve into them with dispassion.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
**Common ascent - you must admit for example, that a human eye is far more sophisticated mechanistically than the eye of a worm. **
Thats not what common decent means.
**Intelligence simple and compound (Ancient Greek description of God) raised Adam from the dust of the ground. **
**It you pose a material theory to explain things, you must be consistent with material facts and reality. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction etc… **
Newtons thrid law, nothing to do with evolution.
**
Mathematics, probability, chemistry, mechanics, electrodynamics all have to be consistent within a scientific framework. Organizational, informational and energetic entropy are very real and must be accounted for. **
The problem for the strict Darwinian biologist is that we see more and more beauty and structure in living things and realize the improbability of that occuring without Intelligence simple and compound as causal. Statistics works against randomness as causal very quickly.
I take it you don’t have a good undertstanding of evolution then, for it explains complexity perfectly.
**For example, Einstein expressed belief in the Supreme being (e.g. Intelligence, simple and compound) for a reason. He crunched the numbers, and realized the beauty of life does not happen unless there is a great and eternal order to the universe. That does not say he believed in a personal God, he had the more ancient Greek form in mind, but it was when the Greeks saw all their forms in the Christian Triune God that they began to seek the personal God. **
Don’t see what this has to do with evolution.
It follows, if the universe has attained to intelligence then it has an intelligent cause.
So if we need intelligence for intelligence, if that follows, if that is a must, then where did god come from.
If the universe has attained to person, it has a personal God. Entropy (death) is real and is trampled down by Jesus Christ who has trampled down death by death.
Its the duty of a true scientist to investigate this with dispassion and facts.
It is the duty to look at the evidence, not to start with conclusions based in dogma.
=================================
**As to Sagan - consider that movie and book about encountering other beings more sophisticated. How much more elegant, simple and beautiful for God to become one of us so that we might encounter him face to face. **
I don’t prefer delusion either. Conceit is delusion and pride is delusion. Facts are with the Christians if anyone would care to delve into them with dispassion.
What facts?
Thats not what common decent means.
**Intelligence simple and compound (Ancient Greek description of God) raised Adam from the dust of the ground. **
**It you pose a material theory to explain things, you must be consistent with material facts and reality. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction etc… **
Newtons thrid law, nothing to do with evolution.
**
Mathematics, probability, chemistry, mechanics, electrodynamics all have to be consistent within a scientific framework. Organizational, informational and energetic entropy are very real and must be accounted for. **
The problem for the strict Darwinian biologist is that we see more and more beauty and structure in living things and realize the improbability of that occuring without Intelligence simple and compound as causal. Statistics works against randomness as causal very quickly.
I take it you don’t have a good undertstanding of evolution then, for it explains complexity perfectly.
**For example, Einstein expressed belief in the Supreme being (e.g. Intelligence, simple and compound) for a reason. He crunched the numbers, and realized the beauty of life does not happen unless there is a great and eternal order to the universe. That does not say he believed in a personal God, he had the more ancient Greek form in mind, but it was when the Greeks saw all their forms in the Christian Triune God that they began to seek the personal God. **
Don’t see what this has to do with evolution.It follows, if the universe has attained to intelligence then it has an intelligent cause.
So if we need intelligence for intelligence, if that follows, if that is a must, then where did god come from.
If the universe has attained to person, it has a personal God. Entropy (death) is real and is trampled down by Jesus Christ who has trampled down death by death.
Its the duty of a true scientist to investigate this with dispassion and facts.
It is the duty to look at the evidence, not to start with conclusions based in dogma.
=================================
**As to Sagan - consider that movie and book about encountering other beings more sophisticated. How much more elegant, simple and beautiful for God to become one of us so that we might encounter him face to face. **
I don’t prefer delusion either. Conceit is delusion and pride is delusion. Facts are with the Christians if anyone would care to delve into them with dispassion.
What facts?
H
harvard1970
Guest
Archaeological expeditions can show that “Troy” existed and that perhaps the Trojan War actually occured. This doesn’t meant the Greek Gods existed.
Science and observation show that rainbows exist. That doesn’t mean they have a supernatural explanation.
The fact that we don’t yet understand something does not mean it has a supernatural explanation. The claim that since we do not today understand something, therefore we can never understand it seems logically fallacious. And a supernatural or superstitious explanation is really no explanation at all.
The “proof” that God exists has boil down to that one really thinks the supernatural events ‘recorded’ in scripture actually literally occurred. The events recorded in the Book of Mormon aren’t true, in spite of the fervent belief of Mormons.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Oh how mature, i point out that you dont understand the significance of PAX6 and that it is in fact evidence for common descent and you stick your fingers in your ears.
.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ndm4tahSx4
there you go, have a look. Seems biologista are convinced your flys are strong evidence FOR evolution.
- Status