Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield
Right, and what came out of the egg? and what did it reproduce with?
Ah...but they do match, at the machinery level, where the ribosomes grind out the proteins. You are artificially limiting what you mean by reproduction. Bacteria diddle selectively with each other's DNA, which transmits partial DNA changes, but is not itself mitosis, producing new animals. Similarly, perhaps, Pig, chicken, man, and flu virus might constitute an evolutionary system in the making, rather analogous to the system that changed unicellulars into multi-cellulars, nerveless jellyfish into chordata, or solitary ants, who breed for themselves, into social ants that let the queen breed for them.
So? Did God exist "forever" before he invented time and space, or did God come into existence at the same "time" as time and space? Why should prefer this explanation to "a rift in the meta-universe caused by the coilapse of another universe suck-started our universe?" Or, for that matter "it's turtles all the way down".
If God created time then he obviously preceded time, if God created the universe then He obviously exists outside of it. The Bible supports this point of view. If God created matter then he obviously preceded matter.
You can't "preceed" time. To preceed suggests an elapse of time. You need for time to exist before you can preceed anything.
The only explanation for the origin of the natural is a supernatural event, ie one existing outside of time and space and not confined by the laws of the universe because they would not have existed yet.
So...if God is causeless, in a time-space sense--why don't I just eliminate the middle man, and assume that the Big Bang was causeless? What's the diff? Other than not paying a 10th of my income to a questionable agency in return for some really annoying nebulous half-baked philosophy predicated on a book whose origins are steeped in the politico-religeous embroglio's of its day, and therefore of occasionally dubious moral worth.
Hmmm… One should not confuse the ‘natural’ with beyond the natural. To what ‘bureau’ are you ‘applying’ ?
What is the radius of a square?
What do you add to powdered water?
A circle has a radius but we do not apply this to a square (or a square circle) and to my knowledge there is no such thing as powdered water. Are these valid questions?
“What created time, space and matter?” is a valid question.
“How long did it take to create time?”
“How much area do you need to create space?”
“How much did you weigh before matter was created?”
– These questions are not valid.
If a ‘spiritual being’ created time, space, and matter – “It” existed before any known physical quality that we know i.e. time, space, and matter. We cannot apply (or limit) physical qualities to something beyond the physical.
Let me explain it to you this way. Where God exists there is no time. If there is no time, then there is no beginning. Therefore God did not have a beginning.
I see your point about saying God can't preceed because "preceed" means that time has elapsed. You make a good point and I will retract my statement and simply say that God invented time.
I don't know what your reference to the Bible has to do with anything, can't we have a discussion of Origins without talking about the Bible (sarcasm).
By the way your use of the word "forever" is just like my use of the word "preceed" as both indicate a passage of time.
Darn. Being blackmailed by your own mother!
Could be worse - she also has a picture of my younger brother, then five years old, getting a big smooch from Rosalyn :)
First, understand that ID and ToE is not an ‘either / or’ situation. ID, ToE, and OOL disagree with the actual mechanisms. At the root of this debate; it’s natural mechanisms i.e. mindless, void of purpose and intent (neo-darwinism) - or mechanisms which display intelligence, purpose, and intent (ID). Furthermore, Design Theory encompasses the Anthropic Principle while ToE and OOL stand alone in what they theorize (at least sometimes – see Dawkins). And if ToE or OOL do not state the creator of life and consciousness to be mindless than ID should not be scorned. IOW, design in biology is an illusion or real.
We have always underestimated cells. . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.
Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell 92 (February 8, 1998): 291.
Now what stops science from viewing this obvious design and what is the difference between what Albert says and 'this’ other than the authors?:
Organisms display the hallmarks of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; self-regulation and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. For this reason, University of Chicago molecular biologist James Shapiro regards Darwinism as almost completely unenlightening for understanding biological systems and prefers an information processing model. Design theorists take this one step further, arguing that information processing presupposes a programmer?
- Dembski
Does ‘naturalism’ ignore design and why?
No offspring is that different from its parents, so it had plenty of others to mate with. However, each generation gets a little more different so that, after awhile the descendents don't resemble their ancestors.
I said which came first (meaning first) there would have been no "plenty others to mate with"
If you're just a troll, you will keep asking them.
Picture a point on a line. That point is an environmental niche. Now, picture a cloud of dots clustered around that point. That's the population. Those closest to the point are more adapted to the niche and those farther away are increasingly less adapted to that particular environment. However, each of those dots can breed fairly successfully with each of the other dots, though those farther apart on the chart (such as opposite ends of the cluster) may find it more difficult for one reason or another to mate successfully.
Now, draw a line through the point perpendicular to the line. This represents something that splits the population -- for instance, a new mountain chain, the Isthmus of Panama, or some new sexual signal that just drives certain girl dots wild. Dots on one side of the line can still breed with dots on the other side of the line and both are still clustered around that point representing the niche
However, let's now take one of the two points created by the new line (basically half the first point) and move it farther down the original line. This represents a change in environment. The parts of the original dot cluster now closest to the new point are more adapted to that environment, and those who used to be in the center of the cluster are now on the fringe and are less "fit" for the new niche. The other half of the cloud need not have moved, or it could have moved in the other direction.
Over generations, the former fringe groups will form the center of a new cluster. They can still interbreed with the other cluster because their fringes overlap (think horses and donkeys). If the new point moves further along the line, the process is repeated. Soon, you have two populations that no longer have any members meeting even on their fringes. At that point, they're separate species (can no longer interbreed). During that time, each of the two new clusters might have been involved in similar splittings, leading to numerous separate clusters, each sharing fringes with another cluster. This would be an example of a ring species -- the two ends cannot interbreed, but they can breed increasingly less successfully with other clusters down the line.
Given time, the clusters will continue to move and split, leading to multitudes of different clusters, all eventually related, but some bearing absolutely no resemblance to the original population.
Now, after reading this, can you see why your "chicken and egg" question was so nonsensical from an evolutionary point of view?
Oh, the horror, the horror.........
;-)
1. feet, claws, and tail are exchanged for flippers.
2. random growth of dorsal fin for steering and stability.
3. It's entire skeletal and muscular structure would have to change along with metabolism, visual, olfactory, and circulatory systems.
4. It would have to develop a method of desalinizing sea water to remain hydrated.
Fictional story? OK… Let’s say that it was a land mammal that became a whale:
1: Nose moves to the back of the head.
2: feet, claws, and tail are exchanged for flippers.
3: random growth of dorsal fin for steering and stability.
4: It would have to change the shape of it's body for hydrodynamics.
5: It's entire skeletal and muscular structure would have to change along with metabolism, audio, visual, sensory, olfactory, and circulatory systems.
6: It would have to develop a method of desalinizing sea water to remain hydrated.
7: Develop sonar and a way to interpret it to aid with visibility.
Now, after reading this, can you see why nothing is nonsensical from an evolutionary point of view if you, “..picture a cloud of dots clustered around that point. That's the population.”
It is fun to theorize and write stories if you use analogies and allegories…
Note: This is only an illustration that might be helpful and not in any way scientific.
Partial credit only.
Oh Balrog, you make me blush…
I hope you know that I am a married man.
I object to Hovind's claim of a degree that he didn't earn for the same reason that I object to Laura Callahan doing the same thing. They're essentially identical twins, ethically and intellectually.
Ah, I see. I went out and chased down the claim sheets and see that the guy does have a PhD from an unaccredited university. Which essentially means he did the work for a PhD; but, since it was done at a Christian school he doesn't get the credit for the work. Sorry, I have no degree in computer sciences and could dance rings around guys who do; but, if I get a degree from an unaccredited school, you would pick knits with me for putting a degree behind my name rather than give me credit for what I know...
Not much different than looking down your nose at someone that is self educated because they didn't spend thousands to get a degree and rather spent less and learnt it themselves - like the researchers of old... Sorry, I don't particularly know Hovind, nor can I say that his use of his degree which he apparently worked for is of any great concern. If he did the work, the credentials are earned. And where they came from is of little import to me as long as the man can teach - that is his degree...
I have listened now to his lectures clear through. Whatever you might want to argue with about what you think of his credentials, he is an effective lecturer and speaks as a teacher. Beyond that, he seems to have a grasp of much of what he talks about in theory. So, I would be more interested in hearing what is wrong with what he is saying than what you dislike about him. Cause what you're saying seems to add up to much ado about nothing. It is not much disassociated from the debate tactic of discrediting a guy based on slurs and character attacks rather than dealing with what he says. And that is more dishonest than anything I think you try to accuse him of IMO.
What I just read elsewhere is that he does have a doctorate. I have not seen anything on this tax cheat business. Saying he's a liar could be quite subjective and a bias expressed to keep people from listening to him rather than dealing specifically with what he says - as could all these charges. The least offensive one is his belief that men and dinosaurs co-existed. I believe a case can be made for that. And I can't see ruling it out given the quality of the evolution "theory" on the matter.
So all things being what they are, I would really like proof of the tax cheat thing, and the liar thing as goes his personal reputation. I'm not sure how any of this reflects on whether what he says in his lectures is true or not as I noted to another. This seems to largely be an attack on the man in substitute for a failure to be able to deal with what he says. If it were possible to directly face down what he says, the rest is generally unnecessary - no?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.