Posted on 04/08/2005 7:39:14 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
It only took the Earth, like, a billion years to generate life! What's wrong with these scientists?
/sarcasm
It depends on the beliefs of the observer. It's a variable. They need like minds to prove it.
They've done studies on the "Jinx in the machine". They allowed balls to drop freely though pegs. Those who believed most of the balls would land on the left side of the machine got balls on the left side of the machine. Those who believed most of the balls would land on the right side got most of the balls on the right side of the machine.
"As a man decree a thing, it will be done unto him."
This is done by waving an imaginary function to guide them.
That is NOT reality!
"Science" has not "discovered" the transition from amino acids to single cell animals.
Nor has it "discovered" the single cell animals "inventing" sex.
That is merely the ego of man filling in the gaps with fantasy.
educated guess - things tend to stay put on flat surfaces but not rounded ones . . . we're standing on something . . . it must be flat.
evidence holds up - until Magellan's crew made it around the planet in the early 1500's the theory held true as no one proved otherwise.
That was "science" . . . and it was DEAD WRONG.
"According to the greatest scientific minds, something, a conciseness, a word, had to have started it all. The rest is our own free will (that's in the Bible, too)."
It could be one particle interacting with another. The observer does not need to be a conscious entity, much less a deity. We don't actually directly observe any of this, it is just way too small, we are reading the results where the part of "observer" was played by some non-conscious part of our experiment.
Which in the sense of "how did it all start" begs the question of where the other particle came from. And the one became two and the two begat four but in the end there can be only ONE. OK, sorry I lost it for a second there.
"nor any atoms or molecules for that matter"
In this case "strong nuclear force" trumps entropy.
Wow. Good catch.
I'll take my "science" with a bit more certainty please!
1.) You suggested I was a child and I quote, "::sigh:: your blind faith is silly and petty. Talk to me once you have your fist kiss. Maybe you'll be more grown up by then."
And would that be "calling you a name" or would it be simply "insulting" to you?
"You also stated you have no inclination in studying any of this anyway as these folks are pagans, so I really have nothing more to learn from you at this point in time."
No, I have no interest in studying under people who begin research with an assumption. (The assumption that their is no God)
However, I am glad to see your last couple of posts have made more sense (and been stated more clearly) than before.
Keep on asking. Keep on questioning. You are energetic, which is good, but focus on your posts and questions. Like I said (and I'm not trying to insult you now) You remind me of me when I was younger.
Heck, last year I was writing just for writing. Throwing out things while assumign everybody followed my rationalization. I've grown alot sense then on this forum.
Conciseness does move particles. That's been "scientifically" proven. A particle doesn't move without a force. What created that force? What created the particle?
> "Science" has not "discovered" the transition from amino acids to single cell animals.
All the steps have been seen. Proto-life has been observed forming in the lab. Life itself has been assembled from non-living components.
> That is merely the ego of man filling in the gaps with fantasy.
Wrong. Filling in the gaps with fantasy would be to say something like "Some god or other did it." What's going on in this case is perfectly appropriate theorizing based on availabel evidence.
Wrong. It was Einstein. Nice try, though.
"Life itself has been assembled from non-living components."
Example?
>All the steps have been seen. Proto-life has been observed forming in the lab. Life itself has been assembled from non-living components.<
What a bunch of crap!
What are you calling "proto-life"?
And what in the heck are you referencing regarding "Life itself has been assembled from non-living components."?
"...single cell animals "inventing" sex."
A great number of single cell critters have sex. Whether they "invented" it or not, I'm glad 8^)
What's going on in this case is perfectly appropriate theorizing based on availabel evidence.
I can't believe I JUST noticed this.
Theo-rizing. or more so... Theo-ry
God's place.
"A particle doesn't move without a force."
Particles have spin. it's inherent.
Catholic Encyclopedia -Creation
"The two general biological problems connected with the Biblical cosmogony are the origin of life and the succession of organisms. Concerning both these problems all that Catholic Faith teaches is that the beginnings of plant and animal life are due in some way to the productive power of God. Whether, with St. Augustine and St. Thomas, one hold that only the primordial elements, endowed with dispositions and powers (rationes seminales) for development, were created in the strict sense of the term, and the rest of nature plant and animal life was gradually evolved according to a fixed order of natural operation under the supreme guidance of the Divine Administration (Harper, "Metaphysics of the School", II, 746); or whether, with other Fathers and Doctors of the School, one hold that life and the classes of living beings orders, families, genera, species were each and all, or only some few, strictly and immediately created by God whichever of these extreme views he may deem more rational and better motived, the Catholic thinker is left perfectly free by his faith to select." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm
I'm Catholic but I don't think we are alone in this view.
"Example?"
Any autotrophic organism.
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.