Spirituality
12 May 12
21 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillI've searched for a book by that title, this is what i get, is this the one?
I am not sure that that is the book. And the book, portions of which I read, admittedly not the entire, seemed to be no attack on Evolution Theory at all.
However, is that book a large soft covered one with very colorful photos on front ?
Why is this Video so unpopular ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3gAfcZ3EZI&feature=related
And the Fo ...[text shortened]... th the Cambrian Explosion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPkSMTQc8Cw&feature=related[/b]
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Lifes-Origin-Reassessing/dp/0802224474
I see you didn't answer my question - If you have only read one book in the last 40 years (?) or so; and not in it's entirety, do you think it might be time to bring yourself up to date? Evolutionary science has moved on a lot since the 1960's.
21 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillMy favorite creationist argument: the ex-ante probability argument. 🙂
Examined - Evolution requires more than 20 billion years. It requires a virtual infinity of past time.
[b]The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjQtqg3yyjk&feature=relmfu[/b]
You can already tell something is amiss by the title of the video. He should have said 'improbability' and not 'impossibility'.
21 May 12
9 edits
Originally posted by jaywill
No designer, no plan needed for a snowflake or a crystal? Then why for a eye of an octopus and/or a human being ?
But, but, isn't the [b]snowflake formation just the same as formation of human eye via Evolution ?
Skip the cutsie stuff and just start at about 50 seconds (and turn down the music backround). (And poor design is not the point that I make in this link).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn8V0DXaq8U[/b]
No designer, no plan needed for a snowflake or a crystal?
correct -unless we use the non-standard meaning of the word “designer” to allow mindless natural forces/processes such as humidity, precipitation etc to be the “designer” of a snowflake or a crystal.
Then WHY for a eye of an octopus and/or a human being ? (my emphasis)
“WHY” what? “WHY” a plan for? -if so, just as with the snowflake, you haven’t established there IS a plan nor a need for a plan for it.
But, but, isn't the snowflake formation just the same as formation of human eye via Evolution ?
No, but there is a couple of analogies similarities; they are both created through mindless natural processes and there is no evidence of either involving a goal/plan.
-the same old lies and misconceptions -and made by a laughable moron like yourself.
21 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humy
No designer, no plan needed for a snowflake or a crystal?
correct -unless we use the non-standard meaning of the word “designer” to allow mindless natural forces/processes such as humidity, precipitation etc to be the “designer” of a snowflake or a crystal.Then WHY for a eye of an octopus and/or a human being ? (my emphasis) [/
-the same old lies and misconceptions -and made by a laughable moron like yourself.
the same old lies and misconceptions -and made by a laughable moron like yourself.
With that last comment our conversation and our conversing is over.
22 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillYes.
Is this what you and humy protest I have not responded to ?
Are you saying you were not convinced or I did not respond ?
You did not respond. You a) demanded that I 'make my case' b) tried to start a side argument about something completely separate and c) when that failed, you tried to move the goal posts.
Response is not [b]persuasion.[/b]
I don't expect it to be, but you didn't respond at all.
22 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead&feature=related
Yes.
[b]Are you saying you were not convinced or I did not respond ?
You did not respond. You a) demanded that I 'make my case' b) tried to start a side argument about something completely separate and c) when that failed, you tried to move the goal posts.
Response is not [b]persuasion.[/b]
I don't expect it to be, but you didn't respond at all.[/b]
http://www.icr.org/article/105/
22 May 12
6 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI responded to you.
Yes.
[b]Are you saying you were not convinced or I did not respond ?
You did not respond. You a) demanded that I 'make my case' b) tried to start a side argument about something completely separate and c) when that failed, you tried to move the goal posts.
Response is not [b]persuasion.[/b]
I don't expect it to be, but you didn't respond at all.[/b]
Your suggestion mainly is that there is a third alternative to me discribing the result of the evolving biosphere being do to either pure chance or plan. Basically that was the disagreement.
Ie.
Yes - which I believe has been pointed out a number of times already.
But just to re-iterate:
Most of the universe operates via physical 'laws' or rules or when they are combined into something more complex, we can call them processes. A process / law / rule does not necessarily have a goal/purpose, but nevertheless cannot accurately be described as 'pure chance'.
Where the process/law comes from is another matter. It could be a 'brute fact' or it could have a cause. If it is a 'brute fact' then I guess one could say its specific attributes are 'by chance' but I don't think that really captures the essence of what we normally mean by chance.
Some of the 'laws/processes' of the universe contain elements (inputs or outputs) that are, as far as we can tell, statistically random. That, is what we call chance.
Ie.
Either a law like the law of gravity is 'a scheme or plan to arrive at [the outcome]' or it is a third alternative.
You said that the third alternative has to do with natural laws at work. My response was that I considered the suggestion of benigh natural laws to be closer to a plan. I also spoke of some of the laws to appeared in themselves tuned for life. Ie. gravity.
So you can charge me with being unresponsive but I have to dismiss that charge as a false charge. You can also say "Just admit you were wrong and we can go on" ( an apparently favorite tactic of yours). But I dismiss that also as an obviously false solution to anything.
Perhaps you will make issue that SOME aspects of your thoughts you saw no direct reply to. Maybe that's true. But I could say the same for you. And I did respond.
And now I will expand on my response a bit. I think the situation with the biosphere is like me going out and winning the state lottery. But not only do I win the state lottery. On that exact same day I win seven other similar lotteries. Now winning one lottery may not seem unusual. But people ask "How did jaywill manage to win eight lotteries in one day ? "
I believe there would be an investigation as to whether or not there was some kind of scheme rigged up by me to have coincidently won eight lotteries in a day.
Now, the FBI or some law agency brings me in for questioning. They say "Jay Will, it seems entirely too lucky for you to have won so much money in eight lotteries. Since pure chance does not seem to be a reasonable answer, please tell us what plan you had to do such a thing."
Then I respond. "Well, sirs, you see it was neither do to pure chance nor to any plan of mine. I heard that there is this third alternative involving simply the laws of physics or laws governing the natural world. It was do neither to luck nor a scheme of my own. The reason for the eight wins involves certain laws in nature."
Now if you don't think I have argued my case before these examiners well, you put yourself in my position and argue your third alternative before them.
Non theistic scientists have admitted that it appears as if the universe knew that we were coming. The laws established in nature appear to some as tuned for the arrival of the biosphere as we see it today. The existence of the biosphere corresponds to my winning the eight lotteries in the analogy.
Show us how you would argue to the examiners a third alternative not a rigged plan and not pure chance at the unlikelihood of my eight wins in a day.
22 May 12
Originally posted by Proper Knob******BUMP FOR JAYWILL****************
I've searched for a book by that title, this is what i get, is this the one?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Lifes-Origin-Reassessing/dp/0802224474
I see you didn't answer my question - If you have only read one book in the last 40 years (?) or so; and not in it's entirety, do you think it might be time to bring yourself up to date? Evolutionary science has moved on a lot since the 1960's.
I see you didn't answer my question - If you have only read one book in the last 40 years (?) or so; and not in it's entirety, do you think it might be time to bring yourself up to date? Evolutionary science has moved on a lot since the 1960's.
22 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobI forgot to mention that I have a book I have read extensively by Tom McIver called Anti-Evolution A Reader's Guide to Writings before and after Darwin. He's obviously an evolutionist. I don't know if he is a biologist without looking again. And it is a very good book.
******BUMP FOR JAYWILL****************
I see you didn't answer my question - If you have only read one book in the last 40 years (?) or so; and not in it's entirety, do you think it might be time to bring yourself up to date? Evolutionary science has moved on a lot since the 1960's.
He kept tract of hundreds and hundreds of books, articles, etc. attacking Evolution. He comments on each one. He classifies them in catagories ranging from "Crackpot" or "Standard Arguments" to "Well reasoned" or "Well researched" .
My opinion is that the book of very fair minded and a good read. You should get it. I never lend it out and probably will keep it for years to come.
Of course there are more uptodate info to be read. And I will try to stay current. Staying current is a double edged sword.
I suppose the expression "BUMP for Someone" means something negative ?
22 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillInteresting book, i'll remember that one.
I forgot to mention that I have a book I have read extensively by Tom McIver called [b]Anti-Evolution A Reader's Guide to Writings before and after Darwin. He's obviously an evolutionist. I don't know if he is a biologist without looking again. And it is a very good book.
He kept tract of hundreds and hundreds of books, articles, etc. attackin ...[text shortened]... ord.
I suppose the expression "BUMP for Someone" means something negative ?[/b]
As for 'bumping a thread', it's nothing negative at all.
In online forums and other online discussion spaces bump is the word used to describe an action (e.g. a message post) so that a particular thread is returned to the top in the list of threads. Some users may even post a message with only the word "bump" to indicate they are posting only to bump the thread to the top of the list where more users will see it.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/T/thread_bump.html
22 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI see. Thanks on "BUMP".
Interesting book, i'll remember that one.
As for 'bumping a thread', it's nothing negative at all.
In online forums and other online discussion spaces bump is the word used to describe an action (e.g. a message post) so that a particular thread is returned to the top in the list of threads. Some users may even post a message with only the w where more users will see it.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/T/thread_bump.html
What did you think about Chirality ?
&feature=related
http://www.icr.org/article/105/
22 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillWhich I do not take to be a response but rather an attempt to sidetrack the discussion.
You said that the third alternative has to do with natural laws at work. My response was that I considered the suggestion of benigh natural laws to be closer to a plan. I also spoke of some of the laws to appeared in themselves tuned for life. Ie. gravity.
If we look at your original statement:
[quote]If there is no scheme then the biosphere exists because of pure chance. If it is not pure chance then there must be a scheme or plan to arrive at the biosphere.
Is there a third alternative ? [/b]
If you accept the laws of nature to be equivalent to 'scheme or plan' then I don't know why you even brought up 'chance' as an option. Surely we all agree that the laws of nature exist and are largely responsible for the way things are? Surely this has nothing whatsoever to do with the biosphere specifically and would apply to anything (stars, planets, rocks etc)? So in light of your 'response', your original question makes no sense.
22 May 12
1 edit
If you accept the laws of nature to be equivalent to 'scheme or plan' then I don't know why you even brought up 'chance' as an option. Surely we all agree that the laws of nature exist and are largely responsible for the way things are? Surely this has nothing whatsoever to do with the biosphere specifically and would apply to anything (stars, planets, rocks etc)? So in light of your 'response', your original question makes no sense.
Above when I quoted you and asked if that was the paragraph that you complained was not addressed, you admitted that it was the paragraph.
If it was not the paragraph then why didn't you indicate this one?