Darwin's theory

looksee

Well there's a thing! I thought I had a pretty good knowledge of the bible, being brought up a protestant and being a Sunday school teacher and studying it (as a subject) in school. But I never came across the little strop about the fig tree! Maybe all the huffing and puffing in the temple might not have happened if he had not been so irritated by the unfortunate tree!

Squeedily Spooch

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Its God-given purpose at that. So basically he designed the tree to act in a certain way, then threw a huff because it obeyed the rules he placed on it (as its creator).

Bible logic :pac:

There's a nice parallel to Adam and Eve there too, God designs something to act a certain way (be it growing fruit at a particular time of year, or a species with free will and the ability to disobey) then throwing a hissy fit because his creations act like how he designed them to. So cursing a tree to not do it's one intended thing anymore, and condemning all mankind becaue of the actions of two people.

You'd wonder why if God just craved unconditional love and worship he didn't just start over, ah crap these two aren't gonna act like how I think they should, I better just make new, obedient people instead.

Ever see the Matrix sequels? when the Architect talks about how the original Matrix was a paradise and humans rejected it, tons of religious symbolism in those films.

floggg

Tordelback wrote: »

It's probably a waddayacallit metaphor. For something or other. Bible's full of 'em, just a mess of allegories, parables and koans. Except for the bits about the Flood. And homosexuals. Those bits are absolutely literal.

Funny way for an omnipotent being to write a world history/rulebook/guide to life all the same.

Sure isn't all part of gods mysterious plan.

I think that was tge real genius - doesn't matter how sloppy, contradictory or plain wrong you are when giving us uour holy word as long as you have a plan to hide behind.

And sure if worst comes to worst, you can just get a Virgin up the duff and then sacrifice the poor sprog as a diversionary tactic!

Squeedily Spooch

floggg wrote: »

Sure isn't all part of gods mysterious plan.

I think that was tge real genius - doesn't matter how sloppy, contradictory or plain wrong you are when giving us uour holy word as long as you have a plan to hide behind.

And sure if worst comes to worst, you can just get a Virgin up the duff and then sacrifice the poor sprog as a diversionary tactic!

Ah the virgin birth, or how one woman's attempt to cover up a child born out of wedlock spiralled wildly out of control.

Skylinehead

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Ever see the Matrix sequels?

Yes.











Unfortunately.

J C

irish coldplayer wrote: »

Just for a laugh I'll hypothesize another way UPB could have been overcome (if it actually existed, which it doesn't) and the great thing is like your ID/creator theory, mine cannot be observably verified, so straight away my theory is at least as plausible as ID.
However unlike your ID theory mine will actually have a basis in science and string theory.

You are probably aware of the Multiverse theory put forward by scientists like Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku.
You've most likely heard of many of these guys before.
Well this theory postulates that there are an infinite number of universes in existence in addition to the one we experience. This would easily allow for the UPB bounds to be overcome as every possible combination happens at the same time an infinite number of times.

Prove me Wrong...

I am very much aware of the Multiverse Theory.
However, even if an infinite number of multiverses existed ... the inability of non-intelligently directed systems to locally (in both time and space) assemble systems with components with sequences that each occupy combinatorial spaces in excess of the UPB means that multiverse theory doesn't allow all possible things to happen (as is sometimes claimed).

There are also exponential 'run-away' issues where the more changes that are made to CFSI the worse the non-functionality becomes ... because of the great disparity in the ratio between the damaging non-functional sequences (equivalent to the UPB) and the functional sequences (which can be as little as one sequence, where it is a critical sequence for a particular function).
The putative organism must also survive when all of this is going on ... and because it only takes one critical system (or even part of a system) to be 'wrong' to kill something and literally thousands of systems must be 'right' to continue living ... the spontaneous production of CFSI would continue to be impossible, even if multiverses existed ... even an infinity of them.
This can best be summarised by the truism that an infinity of dead things will remain an infinity of dead things ... without an input of intelligence.

kingchess

And yet here we are:D. that link that was posted earlier -the physics of the universe-has a section called the "Beginnings of life"(I do not know how to link it here) that answers your question.Life started off basic and then became more complex.

SaveOurLyric

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The reasons why otherwise educated and intelligent people think there is a god, or purport to even when they do not, are too numerous to mention in anything shorter than a book.

From a medical perspective can they be classed as delusional or even insane ? Or is it that a tendency to 'simple minded' religious belief is innate and natural, but which side of the fence people fall on is decided by the opposing forces of the strength of this natural tendency in an individual on the one side, and their intelligence, education, and sophistication of cultural environment. Some fall on the natural side despite the seeming strength of the force against it.

Chunners

J C wrote: »

I am very much aware of the Multiverse Theory.
However, even if an infinite number of multiverses existed ... the inability of non-intelligently directed systems to locally (in both time and space) assemble systems with components with sequences that each occupy combinatorial spaces in excess of the UPB means that multiverse theory doesn't allow all possible things to happen (as is sometimes claimed).

There are also exponential 'run-away' issues where the more changes that are made to CFSI the worse the non-functionality becomes ... because of the great disparity in the ratio between the damaging non-functional sequences (equivalent to the UPB) and the functional sequences (which can be as little as one sequence, where it is a critical sequence for a particular function).
The putative organism must also survive when all of this is going on ... and because it only takes one critical system (or even part of a system) to be 'wrong' to kill something and literally thousands of systems must be 'right' to continue living ... the spontaneous production of CFSI would continue to be impossible, even if multiverses existed ... even an infinity of them.
This can best be summarised by the truism that an infinity of dead things will remain an infinity of dead things ... without an input of intelligence.

lol you are really attached to the UPB aren't you? even though no one else but you (and the quite mundane creationist who though it up) think that it is viable piece of math to prove the existence of a God, it's actually endearing that no matter how many times you are proved wrong you keep going back to your old reliable as a crutch.

As for your "Truism" where exactly is that a truism? if your only argument is that only dead things could exist then they aren't dead since the precursor for death is life, the correct word would be "non-living", as a "scientist" one would expect you to know the difference at the very least. If you're not sure I can help, a rock is non-living but road kill is dead, science 101

J C

kingchess wrote: »

And yet here we are:D. that link that was posted earlier -the physics of the universe-has a section called the "Beginnings of life"(I do not know how to link it here) that answers your question.Life started off basic and then became more complex.

Sounds superficially plausible ... until you examine the maths involved in even a 'simple' life-form ... and the great disparity in the ratio between the damaging non-functional sequences (equivalent to the UPB) and the functional sequences (which can be as little as one sequence, where it is a critical sequence for a particular function) ... which ensures that exponential 'run-aways' occur, where the more changes that are made to CFSI the worse the non-functionality becomes ... and the further away from any functionality it goes.
Its like hitting your car randomly with a hammer ... the more often you hit it the worse it becomes ... and if you were to keep randomly hitting it ... it would disappear into dust as you approached an infinity of hits .... and not a chance in all the multiverses that could ever exit, that you could ever produce a Rolls Royce by randomly damaging a Trabant.:pac:
... and the same logic applies to randomly damaging Pondscum ... and expecting it to turn into a Human.:eek:

J C

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

From a medical perspective can they be classed as delusional or even insane ? Or is it that a tendency to 'simple minded' religious belief is innate and natural, but which side of the fence people fall on is decided by the opposing forces of the strength of this natural tendency in an individual on the one side, and their intelligence, education, and sophistication of cultural environment. Some fall on the natural side despite the seeming strength of the force against it.

... please stop unfounded personal insults ... most Atheists aren't delusional or insane ... and calling their belief that they evolved from Pondscum 'simple minded' is also going a bit far.

Please stick to the topic at issue - and leave your trolling abusive comments behind you, when you come here to debate.:(

Chunners

J C wrote: »

Sounds superficially plausible ... until you examine the maths involved in even a 'simple' life-form ... and the great disparity in the ratio between the damaging non-functional sequences (equivalent to the UPB) and the functional sequences (which can be as little as one sequence, where it is a critical sequence for a particular function) ... which ensures that exponential 'run-aways' occur, where the more changes that are made to CFSI the worse the non-functionality becomes ... and the further away from any functionality it goes.
Its like hitting your car randomly with a hammer ... the more often you do it the worse it becomes ... and if you were to keep randomly hitting it ... it would disappear into dust as you approached an infinity of hits.

But see thats the thing, life doesn't follow rules of maths. As I said no matter how many non functional sequences exist the functional sequence still has the same odds of existing first time around as all the rest, your UPB assumes that there are so many number combinations in a lotto that the chances of 1,2,3,4,5,6 coming out is statically impossible but it isn't, it is just as possible as any other combination and the lie you tell yourself that it needs an infinite amount of draws for it to happen is wrong too, it only needs one draw

J C

Chunners wrote: »

lol you are really attached to the UPB aren't you? even though no one else but you (and the quite mundane creationist who though it up) think that it is viable piece of math to prove the existence of a God, it's actually endearing that no matter how many times you are proved wrong you keep going back to your old reliable as a crutch.

As for your "Truism" where exactly is that a truism? if your only argument is that only dead things could exist then they aren't dead since the precursor for death is life, the correct word would be "non-living", as a "scientist" one would expect you to know the difference at the very least. If you're not sure I can help, a rock is non-living but road kill is dead, science 101

... and the follow on from life is the condition of being not alive i.e. dead ... an identical state that is shared with all matter that isn't at any particular point in time within the cellular structure of a living organism.
... and every thing that isn't alive can be described as technically and actually dead.
... I think that the term you were searching for to describe a rock, that eluded you, was 'inorganic'.

J C

Chunners wrote: »

But see thats the thing, life doesn't follow rules of maths. As I said no matter how many non functional sequences exist the functional sequence still has the same odds of existing first time around as all the rest, your UPB assumes that there are so many number combinations in a lotto that the chances of 1,2,3,4,5,6 coming out is statically impossible but it isn't, it is just as possible as any other combination and the lie you tell yourself that it needs an infinite amount of draws for it to happen is wrong too, it only needs one draw

Everything in our Universe follows mathematical rules ... it's the queen of sciences ... and it rules all other sciences.

The laws of probability completely rule out the production of specific functional sequences in a particular time and space where such sequences occupy combinatorial spaces at and above the UPB. They're actually practically ruled out long before the UPB is reached.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

... and the follow on from life is the condition of being not alive i.e. dead ... an identical state that is shared with all matter that isn't at any particular point in time within the cellular structure of a living organism.
... and every thing that isn't alive can be described as technically and actually dead.
... I think that the term you were searching for to describe a rock, that eluded you, was 'inorganic'.

Are you for real ?

Anything that isn't alive can be described as dead ?

"I love collecting dead rocks. They're the best kind." Does that make any sense to you ?

A rock is an inanimate object, neither alive nor dead.

You really are just trolling aren't you. I think you deserve to be added to the ignore list.

You've probably been listening to William Lane Craig a bit too much.

J C

Luis Felipe wrote: »

There are countless flaws in the design of humans, the blinds pot in the eye is one. Only and idiot would purposely build the human body the way it is.

... I quite like my body in all it's magnificence ...
... so, if I may ask, why have you such low self-esteem?

Luis Felipe wrote: »

Simple organisms adapt. The ones which or best suited to survive prosper while propagating their successful features. The crucial flaw in your reasoning is the assumption of independence changes in an organisms molecular structure. The organisms with the most advantageous characteristics survive and the rest die off, this cycle continues resulting in an ever changing organism. We are the organism which resulted from the continually changing environment. It's cause and effect. Your logic and understanding of probability and evolution is critically flawed.

Yes organisms can cope with some environmental changes by using pre-existing capacities such as shivering and sweating, for example. At a population level they can adapt by pre-existing traits such as long hair or short hair varieties being selected, for example.
Nobody is arguing that NS doesn't select ... it the ultimate source of the CFSI diversity from which NS selects that is at issue.

J C

Luis Felipe wrote: »

There are infinite numbers of those "specific functional sequences".

Experiments have been done that witness in real time the evolution of bacteria into new species.

... of eh .. em ... bacteria.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

... of eh .. em ... bacteria.

Yes, that's the point.. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

J C

Saganist wrote: »

Are you for real ?

Anything that isn't alive can be described as dead ?

"I love collecting dead rocks. They're the best kind." Does that make any sense to you ?

A rock is an inanimate object, neither alive nor dead.

Inanimate ... not alive ... dead.

Saganist wrote: »

You really are just trolling aren't you. I think you deserve to be added to the ignore list.

You've probably been listening to William Lane Craig a bit too much.

You guys are playing with words you don't quite understand.:)

Saganist

J C wrote: »

Inanimate ... not alive ... dead.

You guys are playing with words you don't quite understand.:)

To say something is dead, means that it either was once alive or had the ability to be alive and to reproduce.

My house is inanimate, not dead.

Do you live in a dead house ?

J C

Saganist wrote: »

Yes, that's the point.. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

It sure is the point ... everything reproduces after their Kind ... and will always be limited to their Kind ... barring an input of intelligence ... and a pretty awesome 'intelligence' at that.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

It sure is the point ... everything reproduces after their Kind ... and will always be limited to their Kind ... barring an input of intelligence ... and a pretty awesome 'intelligence' at that.

A "kind" is not defined in science. If you want to use scientific facts, please stick to scientific terms please.

I think you need to do some reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy

Is not too bad a place to start.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... please stop unfounded personal insults ... most Atheists aren't delusional or insane ... and calling their belief that they evolved from Pondscum 'simple minded' is also going a bit far.

Please stick to the topic at issue - and leave your trolling abusive comments behind you, when you come here to debate.:(

I'd have to actually agree somewhat with J C on this one. Assuming people are delusional or insane based purely on religious beliefs is an oversimplification. You don't just dispose of a few thousand years of culture overnight. I'd imagine there's something about the way our brains are wired that makes religion very appealing.

However, the poster was merely asking a question and not attacking you J C, so playing the victim here is also uncalled for.

J C

Saganist wrote: »

To say something is dead, means that it either was once alive or had the ability to be alive and to reproduce.

My house is inanimate, not dead.

Do you live in a dead house ?

The walls aren't alive ... at least I hope not.
... and it's made of inanimate i.e dead material of both organic and inorganic origin.

Now ... can we stop nit-picking over irrelevancies and return to the topic at issue
... the invalidity of Darwins Theory and the validity of its new scientific replacement ... ID.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

The walls aren't alive ... at least I hope not.
... and it's made of inanimate i.e dead material of both organic and inorganic origin.

Now ... can we stop nit-picking over irrelevancies and return to the topic at issue
... the invalidity of Darwins Theory and the validity of its new scientific replacement ... ID.

If you're implying inanimate and dead are the same thing there's absolutely no point debating with you on anything close to a serious academic level.

Also 'stop the nit picking' from someone who wouldn't answer posts because they weren't mentioning the post number they were referring to. Oook then.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

The walls aren't alive ... at least I hope not.
... and it's made of inanimate i.e dead material of both organic and inorganic origin.

Now ... can we stop nit-picking over irrelevancies and return to the topic at issue
... the invalidity of Darwins Theory and the validity of its new scientific replacement ... ID.

I was picking you up on a point you made, which is entirely false. Stop trying to deflect.

I'll address the above as follows.

Darwins theory is not a complete theory, it was though, the foundation of evolution theory which is as much a fact as I am sitting here typing this reply.

ID is just another name for Creationisim which has been defeated on more than one occasion in a court of law.

See the Dover trial for more info.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'd have to actually agree somewhat with J C on this one. Assuming people are delusional or insane based purely on religious beliefs is an oversimplification. You don't just dispose of a few thousand years of culture overnight. I'd imagine there's something about the way our brains are wired that makes religion very appealing.

However, the poster was merely asking a question and not attacking you J C, so playing the victim here is also uncalled for.

I was defending the honour of everybody else on the thread from such name-calling.:(
... because such terms of abuse could never apply to me, anyway.

... and religious beliefs are many faceted ... ranging from the belief systems of the anti-god Atheists to the pro-god Theists ... and not forgetting the agnostic sitting firmly on the fence, not knowing which way to jump.:)

Saganist

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If you're implying inanimate and dead are the same thing there's absolutely no point debating with you on anything close to a serious academic level.

Also 'stop the nit picking' from someone who wouldn't answer posts because they weren't mentioning the post number they were referring to. Oook then.

He's running around in circles trying to deflect every question, and ends up tripping over himself. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Saganist

I can't believe it.

Today, the all the rocks out my back garden died. The walls died and even my deep fat fryer died.

I'm having a ceremony to see them off to the next life. :rolleyes:

J C

laurinjames wrote: »

And most Ironically for poster JC the bible is full of what is technically alien life from God to angels.

No evidence for alien life has ever been found yet, but I believe its out there somewhere.

No need to just believe ... they're there allright ... I have had close encounters with them!!!:)