How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


50 posted 12-27-2005 05:50 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

The irony, of course, is that if intelligent tampering really did happen, it will be the evolutionary researchers who discover it.



Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


51 posted 12-27-2005 06:00 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

and who discovers it if it was due to
unintelligent tampering?
probably me


?should I change my icon to the clown???
don't answer that!
Mandamus
Junior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 10


52 posted 12-27-2005 09:52 PM       View Profile for Mandamus   Email Mandamus   Edit/Delete Message     View IP for Mandamus

Brad:

quote:
The irony, of course, is that if intelligent tampering really did happen, it will be the evolutionary researchers who discover it.


Rediscover it, actually.  With the small details of the sun and the stars following plants  (light DID precede plants - not bad by 25th century B.C. standards), I think Moses beat Darwin to the prize.  After all ... Moses didn't tell us how God did it.  He just said he did it in a particular order.

I just don't want you to think that the IDeists are representative of the entirety of theistic heritage.  Bought by son a mosasaur tooth for Christmas.  It doesn't cause any problems with my views on Christmas ... why do you think it feels like a wedgie to an IDeist?

Mandamus
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


53 posted 12-27-2005 10:05 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If intelligent tampering were discovered before we came along, it wouldn't disprove evolution.

I agree. And if evolution was demonstrated in the laboratory tomorrow, it wouldn't disprove Intelligent Design. But that's not the point.

What ID and evolution share has always been more important than where they differ. Both are highly resistant to proof, and both are seemingly incapable of making ANY useful predictions that can be tested. They are twin brothers, born of the same parents, Rationalization and Faith.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


54 posted 12-28-2005 12:32 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

wrong, rhetorical nonsense Ron.

evolution is entierly useful -- unless you never go to the doctor.  

it is metaphysically neutral.

you had parents.  every living thing had a parent -- it came from life -- dung beetles do not spring spontaneously from dung.  the fossil record shows conclusively that different forms of life existed before the present form.  not one find has sprung up to show that current life forms existed in pre-historic times.

you continue to make the error of comparing a theory of a designer to a study of the 'designed'

  

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


55 posted 12-28-2005 05:10 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I stopped reading this somewhere around page two.

Which one of you can break this down for me?

Pretend I am the little kid in the class (because with all your micro/macro-theoreticisms, I don't have a frigging clue as to what you are talking about.)

And if I don't know, my kids won't either.

This is not about what we personally believe is true, but about educating our children to the expansion of their minds to possiblity.

I want my flying monkeys, (gotta wink at LR )--I want them and all of their possibilities taught to my kids right next to Adam & Eve.

Drop the fig leaves and reveal it all, I say.

Teach comparative religion, history, anthropology--right along side of how to put square blocks into square holes.

I am all for it.

What the hell, I have to teach it at home anyway...Besides, the world of comparative belief is such a satisfying study anyhow.

(Did ya'll know that the number, 72, is like, the Muslim equivilant of "innumerable"?
Is it just me? But I find that fascinating. So no, suicide-dude-bomber, there may not be exactly 72 virgins awaiting you in martyrdom, but there will be, more likely, much more purity than you can handle.)<--I love that shtuff.
I like to think in a broader scope.



Oh well. It's late (or early) depending on if you've slept.

grin...I haven't.

and once upon a time I was an English Education major with my minor, child psychology.



almost had yer kids, I did.

watch out folks, we're everywhere....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


56 posted 12-28-2005 06:05 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

After this thread K I am wondering what all the hullaballoo is about anyway.  Evoloution is clearly NOT being taught in schools.

Let alone science.

Here are some resources but, first what is scientific?
quote:

The scientific method or scientific process is fundamental to scientific investigation and to the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by the scientific community. Scientists use observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Under the working assumption of methodological materialism, observable events in the natural world (including the artificial works of humanity) are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by various experiments, which should be reproducible. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be conceivable to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. It should also be noted that a hypothesis cannot be proven, rather, the data from a given experiment designed to test a hypothesis can either support or disprove that hypothesis.

Once a hypothesis is repeatedly verified through experiment, it is considered to be a theory and new predictions are based upon it. Any erroneous predictions, internal inconsistencies or lacunae, or unexplained phenomena, initiate the generation and consideration of corrections or alternative hypotheses, which are themselves tested, and so on. Any hypothesis which is cogent enough to make predictions can be tested in this way.

An unverified hypothesis may gain considerable currency among specialists due to its elegance or some intuitive sense of its validity, or anticipation of its verification, though it is not formally accepted until convincing experimental proof is presented; see the example of general relativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method




What is an experiment?
quote:

In the scientific method, an experiment is a set of actions and observations, performed to support or falsify a hypothesis or research concerning phenomena. The experiment is a cornerstone in the empirical approach to knowledge. See the list of famous experiments for historically important scientific experiments.




What is a natural experiment?
quote:

Sometimes controlled experiments are prohibitively difficult, so researchers resort to natural experiments. Natural experiments take advantage of predictable natural changes in simple systems to measure the effect of that change on some phenomenon.

Much of astronomy relies on experiments of this type. It is clearly impractical, when trying to prove the hypothesis "suns are collapsed clouds of hydrogen", to start out with a giant cloud of hydrogen, and then perform the experiment of waiting a few billion years for it to form a sun. However, by observing various clouds of hydrogen in various states of collapse, and other implications of the hypothesis (for example, the presence of various spectral emissions from the light of stars), we can collect the experimental data we require to support the hypothesis.

An early example of this type of experiment was the first verification in the 1600s that light does not travel from place to place instantaneously, but instead has a measurable speed. Observation of the appearance of the moons of Jupiter were slightly delayed when Jupiter was farther from Earth, as opposed to when Jupiter was closer to Earth; and this phenomenon was used to demonstrate that the difference in the time of appearance of the moons was consistent with a measurable speed of light.



Both quotations from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment

a good simple primer on evolution for all levels children to adults:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

of course Wiki has  good overview too; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

and.. you almost had my kids???  were you that girl in New Orleans who?? um... nevermind...
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


57 posted 12-28-2005 10:45 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
you had parents.  every living thing had a parent -- it came from life -- dung beetles do not spring spontaneously from dung.  the fossil record shows conclusively that different forms of life existed before the present form.  not one find has sprung up to show that current life forms existed in pre-historic times.

That's called biology, Reb, not evolution. It is best explained by Genetics, where offspring combine the existing DNA of parents, not evolution where the offspring get to make up whimsical new characteristics never before seen.

quote:
Once a hypothesis is repeatedly verified through experiment, it is considered to be a theory and new predictions are based upon it.

Reb, that is the part where evolution fails the test of science. Evolution makes no verifiable predictions. It can't, because its underpinnings are essentially random.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


58 posted 12-28-2005 05:03 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I don't think you're going to be able to successfully divorce genetics and biology from evolution.  Descent, that is having parentage, is the principle vehicle of evolution.

I hate it when people shotgun issues in posts, so, I'm going to limit myself to a very specific example which is also up to the hour practically;

quote:

"When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96 percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans' closest cousins.

But decoding chimpanzees' DNA allowed scientists to do more than just refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests.

If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.

"That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.

Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.

Their analysis was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could -- through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection -- give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth."
...

"Lander's experiment tested a quirky prediction of evolutionary theory: that a harmful mutation is unlikely to persist if it is serious enough to reduce an individual's odds of leaving descendants by an amount that is greater than the number one divided by the population of that species.

The rule proved true not only for mice and chimps, Lander said. A new and still unpublished analysis of the canine genome has found that dogs, whose numbers have historically been greater than those of apes but smaller than for mice, have an intermediate number of harmful mutations -- again, just as evolution predicts.

"Evolution is a way of understanding the world that continues to hold up day after day to scientific tests," Lander said.

By contrast, said Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Intelligent Design offers nothing in the way of testable predictions."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177_pf.html

ok...

so here's where everybody attacks the Washington Post and calls it a liberal newspaper.
http://www.broad.mit.edu/cgi-bin/news/display_news.cgi?id=161
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


59 posted 12-28-2005 05:48 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

I've been reading all this, and one thing keeps coming to mind regarding evolution and primates.  Insulin.

Yep, that's right, insulin.  And do you know where the majority of natural insulin for human consumption comes from?  PIGS.  Domestic pigs.  Bristly snouted larders on hooves.  Not monkeys, not chimpanzees, not any 'primate' we've seen in any type of public zoo.

So, my question is this: if chimps are the closest genetically, when why on earth do type 1 diabetics (type 2 is largely resistant) inject natural insulin that comes from pigs?  If the Theory of Evolution is FACT, that homo sapiens came from monkeys, why is primate insulin rejected by the human body, but pig is accepted?

I've leave my thoughts about 'millions of years old cave art about modern critters that haven't changed a whit during all that time' for a later post, which is something else I've been pondering.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


60 posted 12-28-2005 06:02 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

. . . The reason we've moved to the pig, rather than the non-human primate such as the chimpanzee and so on, is that first of all, they're very much easier to breed in large numbers, and to house and develop. The non-human primates have difficulties with breeding programs, etc. So one is a logistic reason.

The second reason is the ethical concerns about using primates in large numbers for donation or organs, whereas we're much more ready to use the pig, because we already do use the pig for food and so on. And the third reason is that as the non-human primates have largely been caught in the wild, we have much less information about what bacteria and viruses they carry than we do about pigs. And so the risk of the infection is considered very much greater if we use a non-human primate than if we use a pig. . . .



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/organfarm/interviews/cooper.html

The fact that pig (and cow) insulin is even adaptable at all to use in humans should indicate the opposite to you Cat... that speciation does occur, and that we, pigs, cows, chimpanzees, all share a common ancestor.

We didn't evolve FROM monkeys.  We have common ancestry with monkeys.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


61 posted 12-28-2005 07:50 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Well, you'll call it speciation, and I'll call it randomness.  See, scientists and researchers didn't just wake up one morning in a fit of seredipidy and proclaim, 'Pigs and Cows, founts of human tolerant insulin!'.  They performed massive trials with lots of errors.  Pigs and cows, and to some extent horses, can provide human tolerant insulin.  Not so with other members of the swine or equine families, and no success at all regarding felines, canines, sea mammals, and rodentia, which includes to my view squirrels, possums, rats, mice, groundhogs, prairie dogs, bats, and raccoons, to name a few.

Of all the classes of mammals out there, including humans, only domestic pigs and domestic cows (not javelina, warthogs or musk oxen) can provide human tolerant insulin which most can use.  Those that can't can sometimes utilize horse insulin.  Of all those mammals, including humans, you hold true to 'all from common ancestors', yet only a few can produce insulin type 1 diabetics can use.  And that, to me, sound far too random to be natural selection, adaptation, or evolution.  Micro or macro.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


62 posted 12-28-2005 07:51 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
I just don't want you to think that the IDeists are representative of the entirety of theistic heritage.  Bought by son a mosasaur tooth for Christmas.  It doesn't cause any problems with my views on Christmas ... why do you think it feels like a wedgie to an IDeist?


I'm not sure I understand the question. The only thing I was trying to get at there was that it will be those actually doing the research that discover anomalies.  Spending most of your time coming with statistical arguments against evolution (Demski) or writing books and papers explaining why something is really complex (Behe) isn't going to get you very far.

Though, to be honest, I suspect there is some value to Behe's work. It motivates others to show him up.

By the way, Behe, at least, is perfectly comfortable with evolution for the most part.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


63 posted 12-28-2005 08:25 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
only domestic pigs and domestic cows


Curious if there is any information on this relationship and native Americans?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


64 posted 12-28-2005 08:42 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Why would cross-species compatibility of insulin work at all Cat?  That not all species can do this is indication that they are speciated.  That not all members of a species can accomplish this when some can isn't so incredible either -- after all, there is a probability that you, Ron, Brad, and I can't all share the same blood in a transfusion.

But, one thing you are correct about -- what you have presented is indication of randomness -- and of common descent.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


65 posted 12-28-2005 10:40 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Well, if you dismiss completely God et al in ensuring humanity has a ready and compatible source of natural insulin for Type 1 diabetics, then I have a very hard time accepting that pigs adapted to provide humans with a usable form of insulin, just to be more useful than mere medical test beds and walking larders.  Yes, back to pigs, as their DNA and chromosonal pairings more closely match the majority of humans than any other critter out there, including the Remus chimpanzee.  Muscle density, flesh composition, immune system...put them in suits and you'd have Congressmen.

All joking aside, I just can't accept that it's all happy accident, that out of the thousands of species and the millions of variants, only the domestic pig, domestic cow and in lesser respects the domesticated horse, have pancreatic insulin with little or no rejection rate for human injectees for Type I therapy.  Even if you took identical twins, one diabetic and the other not, and took insulin from the not and gave it to the diabetic, the diabetic's body would in all likelihood reject his twin's insulin, and would be lucky to survive the system shock.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


66 posted 12-29-2005 05:45 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

While I'm not going to argue with the assertion that livestock would be a better match for Congress than human DNA you simply have some of the facts confused.

Other primates, specifically chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, are the closest genetically to humans -- which means we have the most recent common ancestry.  After that come old world monkeys such as the rhesus.

Because of our close genetic match we also carry similar diseases.  It is one of the benefits of our dissimilarities that make pigs a great source of tissue for such work as Xenotransplantation because they carry no human pathogens and are easier to clone than primate DNA.  Work has progressed in hybridizing pig DNA and human DNA so they can actually grow human-compatible organs.

quote:

Another potential application of cloning to organ transplants is the creation of genetically modified pigs from which organs suitable for human transplants could be harvested . The transplant of organs and tissues from animals to humans is called xenotransplantation.

Why pigs? Primates would be a closer match genetically to humans, but they are more difficult to clone and have a much lower rate of reproduction. Of the animal species that have been cloned successfully, pig tissues and organs are more similar to those of humans. To create a "knock-out" pig, scientists must inactivate the genes that cause the human immune system to reject an implanted pig organ. The genes are knocked out in individual cells, which are then used to create clones from which organs can be harvested. In 2002, a British biotechnology company reported that it was the first to produce "double knock-out" pigs that have been genetically engineered to lack both copies of a gene involved in transplant rejection. More research is needed to study the transplantation of organs from "knock-out" pigs to other animals.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml



quote:

Primates are the closest living relatives of humans, both in evolutionary and genetic terms. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are the animals most similar to humans in overall DNA sequence, with a difference between the two species of approximately 1-1.5%. The other apes, including gorillas and orangutans are nearly as similar to humans. The animals next most closely related to humans are the Old World monkeys, superfamily Cercopithecoidea. This evolutionary group includes the common laboratory species of the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta), baboon (Papio hamadryas), pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina), and African green monkey or vervet (Chlorocebus aethiops). Squirrel monkeys, tamarins, marmosets, and owl monkeys are all New World primates (Platyrrhini). New World species are also important in biomedical research, but they are more distantly related to humans than are the Old World monkeys (e.g., baboons and macaques). Consequently, there are larger genetic and physiological differences between humans and New World primates than between humans and Old World monkeys and apes.
http://www.ncrr.nih.gov/compmed/primategenomics20010606.asp



Discounting supernatural explanations is exactly what science does Cat.

I find your logic a bit curious.    
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


67 posted 12-29-2005 09:16 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"When you have a formula for determining which butterfly's wings caused a particular tornado Ess, that will be a useful and impressive technology."


Local Rebel

Is that how much might you attribute to the weather, that a butterfly can flip it like a coin?
I think if you believe in evolution you should look at the weather more deeply. To use the example of the thumb and the coin, as analogy I don't think the weather is more like the coin  than the thumb that flips the coin in certain ways making many conditions that evolution inevitably hangs on. Just ask yourself this:  if life is random and not determined by certain conditions, then why is it not on any planet in our solar system, but is on this certain particular planet, that is a certain
distance away from the sun, with certain weather conditions between the moon and sun?  I'm not saying littler things don't have influence and active force.  But I don't think they take the role of a more active force over the weather, than the weather takes over them. How can anything evolve without the right weather conditions?  And if the weather conditions make the conditions in which something may evolve, the way those conditions bend within must influence very strongly the way evolution bends.  I'm just saying it is a mightier force than to say a butterfly probably flipped up a tornado, because if we say that, it seems we must also say that when the human flipped the quarter -the smaller vessel of forces--it was not the human that made the human flip the quarter, but the quarter itself. That just doesn't seem likely.  Nor does it seem likely that the weather is moved by the butterflies more than the butterflies are moved by the weather.  


[This message has been edited by Essorant (12-29-2005 12:00 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


68 posted 12-29-2005 04:13 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Not much time right now Ess... my apologies, I was making what is apparently an obscure reference to Chaos Theory and the Butterfly Effect, I thought it had gained more general awareness;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
http://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


69 posted 12-30-2005 01:11 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

I've got to get out of Philosophy 101 more, I miss too many good threads.


It would be interesting to reconsider what philosophical heritage Darwinian Evolution has, and at least ask the question of whether or not such presuppositions have at any time softened the rigors of what is to be considered "scientific fact".  A doctrine of Evolution goes back to the Milesian philosopher Anaximander, who believed that people evolved from fish-like creatures ... without an ounce of "science" to affirm it.  Was there a philosophic desire or longing which was conveniently met when Darwin came along ... whether or not he was right or wrong concerning macroevolution?  He himself tended to doubt it far more than his contemporary proponents do.  Of course ID also may have a philosophic bias as well, and would be worthy of discussion.


Stephen      
majnu
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Senior Member
since 10-13-2002
Posts 1228
SF Bay Area


70 posted 12-30-2005 02:51 AM       View Profile for majnu   Email majnu   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for majnu

everything is philosophy until you can conduct experiments that test a self consistent set of rules.

then it becomes what we like to call science. philosophy is inherently speculative. back then people knew little and had no system with which to decide if and when they knew something. we are better off now.

as for need, i think id is more in that vein. how comforting to think that a hyperintelligent being made everything just so for some grand purpose.

-majnu
--------------------------------------
Timid thoughts be not afraid. I am a Poet.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


71 posted 12-30-2005 05:46 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

as for need, i think id is more in that vein. how comforting to think that a hyperintelligent being made everything just so for some grand purpose.



Of course -- the next question becomes free will. And we're back to attempting to consider whether or not the universe is a billiard game where every action is calculable from the previous action.  

Certainly chaos theory demands that it be such a deterministic system with nonlinear variables that are calculable if we only had a brain.  The intial conditions being a giant cue ball strike called the big bang.

Genesis said God spoke the universe into existence.  If we listen to the 'sound' of the big bang that still resonates in the universe we can hear the word of God.

He said, "Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" or "hmmmmmmmmmmmmm"
http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/MathSource/5083
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


72 posted 12-30-2005 10:44 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Sorry; I deleted my little verse because I thought it was a bit out of place.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (12-30-2005 12:47 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


73 posted 12-30-2005 08:58 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

well you could put something regarding your thoughts in its' place Ess..

and.. Stephen.. the alley could always use a strong polemic voice
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


74 posted 12-30-2005 09:11 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

REb, maybe SHE said OM, and we heard UM...
and have mis-interpreted everything ever since
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors