Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

4 sorta semi-related Qs keep popping up:


whence cometh the universe?

whence cometh the earth?

how did life on earth begin?

how did humans (& all the other extant species) come to be here now?






4 seperate Qs really...

 

There's one overarching answer to all those questions: God.

Or you can take the materialistic view and break down the questions into infinite subquestions with infinite answers and never reach the conclusion. This is called the cycle of suffering (samsara).

 

I agree with you. All other possibilities end in the absence of logic. Which is why post modernism or post-post modernism has turned on philosophy and logic now that it feels it has defeated religion. Also I say shame on all of us Theist b/c it's the folks from hard science which have refuted relativism better than we have.

Also b/c I noticed that there are some folks on this site who are fond of both Darwin and Nietzsche I looked up this little pearl of his from Nietzsche'sTwilight of the Idols Part X sec14...
He says that species do not grow toward perfection. It is the weak that prevail over the strong, and they are always in the great majority. The weak also have more intellect, exactly in proportion as they lack instinct and will. Darwin, he says, forgets that intellect holds back progress. The weak have more intellect because they need it in order to make up for their lack of instictual power....Any thought we may have of the basic principle of reasoning, that is, the principle of noncontradiction is only a subjective rule invented by ourselves. The greater the ability to think logically, to formulate scientific formulas, and to think about God, the greater the falsity.

So it seems that Nietzsche and Darwin may be mutually exclusive.

 

WEll MAYBE, that's the way we use our thoughts, right now, in this age..and so theres alot of 'falsity' but that doesn't make intelligence and logical thinking a 'weak' breed. It could be that for as long as we've been human so far, we haven't hit on what intelligence IS FOR...
Also 'instinctual power', is intelligence and reasoning. of a supreme sort, it must come from the 90% 'unused' part of our brains. it's intelligence of light speed.
WE need to evoloute our intelligence potential.

 

Well now, I agree that its a waste of time to try to understand such theoretical posits. If you knew the answer to all of them, what benefit would that be in your daily life?

1. Whence cometh all? It burst forth in a cloud of strings, holes, dark matter, and force from a one dimensional point that held it all in a timeless, locationless void, for an infinitessimally short moment, that lasted quadrillions of millenia simultaneously.
2. Our Sacred Mother Gea conglomerated together from a bunch of space rock that settled into a relatively stable orbit as the sun grew into its adolescence and its nuclear reaction stabilized, our home was born just like all the other planets. Only the one that used to be between between Mars and Jupiter went fubar, and its flotsam and jetsam created bedlam and pretty much toasted Mars at the same time.
3. Life began similarly to the growth of a crystal inside a thunderegg spewed from a volcano. A matrix of elements was catalyzed to bind together through a combination of pressure, temperature, water, and maybe even lightning, (like in Frankenstein), and one crystal out of billions encountered ideal conditions to become one layer more complex. Over time, a crystal got so complex, we'd now say it was a virus, and was virtually alive......then bacteria, and so on, right up to the peak of evolution......the orca.
4. see above

AAAAH, now I can rest, having answered all the greatest mysteries of eternity.
But what I want to know is whether it is okay to spank a 5 year old if they repeatedly endanger themselves and refuse to stop their behaviour?
Far more useful info.

 

It is obviously all right to be disciplined. It shows love and caring, even if the 5 year old doesn't understand it at the time.

 

Agreed, so long as it is minimal force used to communicate the importance of your rule. I am enraged when I read, or hear about kids that age going to the hospital for not making their bed. The disciplinarian would be soon to go there too, if I was able to do anything about it.

 

So it is obvious that someone who is willing to discipline must be accepting of discipline as well.

 

I pray that you hear me, oh dearest Creator.
For my will has been weak, and laziness greater.
Humbly I pray you forgive me my sins.
I know in the end the good always wins.

'Thy will be done' is my prayer to my maker.
Help me give more and be less of a taker.
Help me stay in the present, and learn from the past.
I pray wars soon end, and peacetime will last.

I thank you for nature, and thank you for love.
For grass underfoot, and the sun up above.
I thank you for life and for letting me choose.
For trials and tests, and the freedom to lose.

My hope is that you will now guide and direct me.
To be open and ready for love to detect me.
Help me make choices and do what it takes.
Let wisdom increase, let me learn from mistakes.

Please make me gracious, and treasure each day.
Remembering childhood, to laugh and to play.
Please gently correct me if ever I stray.
If I do wrong, I must know I will pay.

Thank you for truth, and exposing the lies.
Thank you for letting me open my eyes.
I'm sorry to any and all I've mistreated.
And pray my poor judgements won't be repeated.


©BG13, July 2nd, 1998

 

well this thread is way to long to grasp the true direction of at the moment

but i think kids should be allowed to be spanked when they do naughty things
but not little, unknowing things

only when theyve been tought not to do somethign and they are being diswobedient, then the slapping should be allowed.

but not enough to bruise or anything.

when kids reach the age of preteens though, then i dont think you should smack a child, caus this is a time many people seem to relate to a lot, in terms of their childhood, and violence isnt something people should relate to. at that age also, children begin to scheme thign in their head and grow resentment

 

As I am simply too lazy to address all 4 points at once let me respond to this one.

BlackGuard XIII writes

1. Life began similarly to the growth of a crystal inside a thunderegg spewed from a volcano. A matrix of elements was catalyzed to bind together through a combination of pressure, temperature, water, and maybe even lightning, (like in Frankenstein), and one crystal out of billions encountered ideal conditions to become one layer more complex. Over time, a crystal got so complex, we'd now say it was a virus, and was virtually alive......then bacteria, and so on, right up to the peak of evolution......the orca.

I will quote extensively Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD, Undergraduate from U of Cal at Berkeley in geology and physics minor in biology. PhD from Yale in Religious Studies, PhD from Berkeley in molecular and cell biology focus on vertebrate embryology and evolution.

First he points out the problems with the Miller study. "The atmospheric conditions used were based on the ideas of Harold Urey, Nobel laureate. Which is now commonly agreed to not be the atmospheric conditions of the early earth. This is well established and easily researched.

The current "organic molecules" which are produced in similar tests to Millers with assumed closer atmospheric conditions are Formaldehyde and Cyanide. Chemicals which destroy protein molecules on contact.

He goes on and grants that "what if" amino acids could be produced at some point in the future by such a test, still that is a very long way from life. "Very far, Incredibly far" It would be the first step in an extremeley complicated process. You would have to get the right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule-- and that would still be a long way from a living cell. Then you'd need dozens of protein molecules, again in the exactly correct sequence to create a living cell. The odds against it surpass 1million to 1, far past what scientist accept as no chance in most other experimental settings.

You could put a sterile, balanced salt solution in a test tube. Then put in a single living cell and poke a hole in it so that its contents leak into the solution. Now the test tube has all the molecules you would need to create a living cell, (also leaving out the formaldehyde and cyanide) far far more than the Miller test has ever accomplished in any form, you have all the components needed for life. The problem is you still can't get a living cell. There would be no point in trying. It would be like a physicist doing an experiment to see if he can get a rock to fall upwards all the way to the moon. No biologist in his right mind would think you can take a test tube with those molecules in it and produce a living cell.

Even if the first cell was far more primitive than the most simple single cell organism of today, the problem remains that the assembly of the right parts in the right way at the right time and at the right place while keeping out the wrong material is insurmountable.

This is not to say that there is no "theory" that could be posed even though it would be completely unsupported at every step by any empirical evidence.

For instance the RNA hypothesis was popular for a while. Then no one was able to demonstrate how RNA could have formed prior to living cells being around to make them, or how it could have survived the conditions of early earth.

The Miller experiment is still prominently featured in current textbooks, often with pictures, presented as "facts". It is plain wrong to give the impression that science has empirically shown how life could have originated, it has not.

It is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science. The idea is that life had to originate this way b/c there's no other materialistic explanation. To pose any other cause, for example intelligent design, you subject yourself to ad hominem and genetic attack and rejection as a scientist.

Walter Bradley, former professor at Texas A&M, also points out that all other "theories" as to how to make the jump from nonlife to life, including--random chance, chemical affinity, self-ordering tendencies, seeding from space, deep-sea ocean vents, and using clay to encourae prebiotic chemicals, do not withstand scientific scrutiny and can not provide empirical evidence on which to base beliefs... concluding that people who believe that life emerged naturalistically need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there's an Intelligent Designer.

I am now finished plagiarizing and would simply add that the Big Bang theory and General Relativity also point to creation. Anthropic fine tuning undoubtedly points more to intelligent design than chance. Biological machines need all parts functioning at the same time to be usefull, irreducible complexity, still points to design, it has not been satisfactorily answered. Also human consciousness and the Cambrian explosion point away from slow minute changes and there is no scientific evidence to counter. The fossil record has not proven Darwin out, it shows the exact opposite of what he predicted it would.

I hope I have not offended anyone, and thank you for reading and responding.

 

"The odds against it surpass 1million to 1, far past what scientist accept as no chance in most other experimental settings."

Naturally- since there are not 1 million identical experiments going on in the lab at the same time!

To state that a 1,000,000 to 1 chance occuring is impossible is to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the statement itself, as well as the fundemental nature of Reality.

Our universe is statistical in nature- existence itself is reliant upon the occurance of low probability events.

And nothing points to intelligent design- because that would require the assumption of a complexed entity without evidence. You can't point to an assumption- that is it's very essence.

Will the fundes never let this thread die?

 

Is this conversation a low probability event?

God points to intelligent design.

Ahh, a question I can answer!! The answer is: maybe.

 

Our universe is statistical in nature- existence itself is reliant upon the occurance of low probability events.

And nothing points to intelligent design- because that would require the assumption of a complexed entity without evidence. You can't point to an assumption- that is it's very essence.



My question would be, how can you accept this principle to make claims that support your philosophy without accepting it when it goes against? The fact is that there is evidence for which the only plausable explanation is intelligence. Now if you rule out intelligent design then our existence is based on low probability, and not simply low probability, astronomically huge immprobability. That is the whole point of what I wrote prior, in what other area would you accept such a huge immprobability as more probable than a seemingly much more simple and straight forward solution?

This is not the most compelling argument, it was just the most handy at the time. The Anthropic, fine tuning of the physics of the universe so overwhelming points to intelligent design that even Hawkings admits to having no choice but to use imaginary numbers to solve it, to get around a begining which all but proves the truthfulness of the Kalam argument. Now there is nothing wrong with using imaginary numbers, unless of course you wish to describe something real.

Also, I almost thought you would make it through without the sneer, of course you realize that the presupposition of anything being innately "right" or "wrong" -- including your or my worldview-- also points to a universal transcedent.

 

geckopelli-To state that a 1,000,000 to 1 chance occuring is impossible is to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the statement itself, as well as the fundemental nature of Reality.

Also with this type of reasoning the scientific method its self is in trouble b/c the statement-- "the only thing that can be accepted as truth is that which can be shown by empirical evidence" --is also a self refuting statement as the truthfulness of the statement can not be proven empirically.

 

is dr gregory bateson in the house?

 

Kharakov,
"Is this conversation a low probability event?"
Indeed- What percentage of the Reality do you suppose has been expended on all conversation EVER?

"God points to intelligent design."
A completely unqualified statement based on un-indicated assumption.
---------------------
quotient,
you make too many unqualified assumptions:

"The fact is that there is evidence for which the only plausable explanation is intelligence."
Then by all means state this evidence. In all the history of humanity, no one ever has.

"what other area would you accept such a huge immprobability as more probable than a seemingly much more simple and straight forward solution?"
Do you really think that the HUGE assumption of a super being is a straight forward solution? And nobody hits the lottery unless god whants them too!

Furthermore, TRUTH is non-sequitor. Obsevation is the first step to understanding.

AS for my philosophy- it's simple: what IS, IS.
And all the silly assumptions in the world can't change that.

And for the record, I have NEVER, not once, said there was no god.
But I have no evidence for such- and nethier do you, or anyone else.

 

Enough.

It's the truth.

Many people do. The fact is you will not know the truth until you are called to know the truth.

Obviously that is what we are talking about.

Assumption:1 a : the taking up of a person into heaven (courtesy of m-w.com)

It's what we are given.

That's completely silly.

That's true.

God is evidence enough for me.

 

You will always be safe behind this statement, but you will convince no one.

 

And thus it SHOULD end yet again- faith for the faithful, and science for the knowledgable!