Posted on 06/30/2006 12:42:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
I see you are using the ""'s method. Kewl!
You sound like you have a good head on your shoulders. Please explain how GPS works ... That should be right up your line! No cutting and pasting - right out of your head.
How could we convince you of evolution. No amount of rational thought would do that since you are locked into an irrational belief.
If the ding had blue paint was at the exact height of a Ford Explorer's bumper, had rubber marks consistent with a Ford Explorer's bumper molding and if I took the paint flakes down to the lab ad it was confirmed that they were from a paint used by Ford in 1990 only, I could conclude with a great deal of certainty that I was hit by a 1990 Ford Explorer. I may not know which one, but I would have a pretty specific idea.
That is not a "guess" it is a working theory based onthe facts available to me. I may not know exactly that it is what happened, but I am pretty sure a "competing" theory that the dent just materialized would be wrong (and I can also rule out your "guess" whatever it is if you don't have the research available to you).
I'm not sure I understand how you're addressing this. G-d can't be removed from the mix. He exists. What I'm saying is that if He didn't exist then there would be no reason to care about morality. What we would have, instead, is social conventions that can change on a whim. There is no reason to prefer taking care of sick children to the Spartan convention of leaving them to die of exposure. Can you provide a justification? Can you provide a justification for taking care of the elderly instead of sending them off to die so they won't consume resources? Can you provide a justification for taking care of anyone, rather than demanding that only the strong survive?
My observation is that this places the essence of humans firmly within that of the other animals but not within the 'image of God'.
Are you making a distinction between whether G-d exists or whether man believes in him? I'm honestly confused. If G-d doesn't exist then man doesn't have an 'image of G-d.'
If man was created in the image of God what would cause him to, or decide to, act immorally?
Pride. That much is consistent throughout human history.
Of course we don't, because they are not part of our community structure. Our moral sense developed in the interactions of humans to humans; if we include animals in that it is through an expansion of our family group.
If we are of the same essence, why not?
What makes you believe that animals are incapable of constructing their own moral guidelines?
Lack of evidence.
The nearer the species is to our level of intelligence, and the more community based they are, the more complex the interactions and the more 'thought' goes into the formation of individual limitations of action within the group. This 'moral code' has been observed in Chimp communities both in captivity and in the wild. This isn't to say that their code is not far more primative than ours but since their intellect is not as developed as ours we shouldn't expect their code to be as advanced.
There is a huge difference between generally accepted mores and a moral code. What you describe falls into the former category. In that category, Soylent Green is not wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it. Drowning your children is not wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it. Offing your elderly parents is not wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it.
In fact, nothing is wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it.
And you're OK with that?
Shalom.
The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" - unless it meets a purpose ....
Apparently you are.
Go rent a copy of Eating Raoul.
2DNA scientist Crick could not accept evolution, apparently as not explaining the complexity of DNA. Did Ann invent this quote?
Also, are these two scientists know-nothing creationists?
Two interesting quotes from Ann's book. 1. Eminent scientist and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyles said he couldn't accept evolution, as too improbable (apparently from a statistics and probability perspective). Did Ann invent this quote? 2. DNA human genome scientist Sir Francis Crick could not accept evolution, apparently as not explaining the complexity of DNA. Did Ann invent this quote? Also, are these two scientists know-nothing creationists?
Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.
It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.
People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.
There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.
It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.
But are Fred Hoyles calculation's correct? It would be dangerous just to assume that his calculations were. A more recent claim details that biogenesis (the formation of life from non-life) is not reliant on the random movement of atoms, but is a natural process, just as hydrogen and oxygen atoms naturally attract to form water. But, if this is the case, what are the chances of the 'Big Bang' producing the atoms that would behave in such a fashion that they would naturally form amino acids and proteins, which in turn would naturally come together to form life?
Sorry for misgauging the thickness of your skin. Alright, and for the intemperate use of "loon". It was only intended as a light hearted way of saying, "of course I disagree with LS about the evolution issue." I do in fact think the antievolution position is "looney," but I shouldn't have personalized it.
In any case I was pinging you because of your expertise as an historian. That wasn't a cheap shot. I thought you might know something about the history of the evolution controversies and have some insight on the question of motivations that saleman had raised. But if not, then fine.
Leave me out of your own looney evolutionist discussions.
Sorry, but it was YOUR choice to enter the thread, and to focus on the evolution aspect. (#25) In fact you continued to do so immediately after this reply to me! (#329)
If you really want to be left out of the evolution discussions you need to leave yourself out in the first instance. Otherwise, why complain?
The invalidity of this argument
2NA scientist Crick could not accept evolution, apparently as not explaining the complexity of DNA. Did Ann invent this quote?
Bogus quote -- scroll down to Quote#74.
The renowned Sir Fred has been known to have had the limb cut out from under some of his other "great ideas" in the past. Besides, here he is out of his expertise if he is discussion evolution.
His reputation it that he comes up with a lot of ideas, many wrong, and hangs on to those ideas too long while science keeps marching ahead leaving him in his isolated little world of misconception.
Since I didn't see a quote, I have no idea. However, it appears that, based on your presentation, she is distorting his views:
In Crick’s view, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s genetics and knowledge of the molecular basis of genetics, when combined, reveal the secret of life [7].
I think you pinged the wrong guy. I'm the evolutionist who got the fight started on this thread.
It is Hoyle, not Hoyles. Hoyles, the imminent science fiction writer.
Also, are these two scientists know-nothing creationists?
Actually, Hoyle's hypothesis was that life came to earth on comets. I guess that would take him off the "creationist" list ...
As I understand it, you are saying that Ann is using Sir FH to support the idea that evolution is not possible. Well, let's look at some of his writings. Perhaps you can now see why we are laughing at how y'all are falling for her glib.
With Chandra Wickramasinghe, his former student, he wrote among others Lifecloud (1978), on the origin of disease, and Diseases from Space (1979) and Evolution from Space (1981). In these works he argued that organic molecules from comets are deposited on Earth during close encounters or impacts, they join the gene pool and make evolution possible.
So, according to you, you and Ann support the idea that viruses came to earth from comet to help jump-start the evolution of life on earth.
"A more recent claim details that biogenesis (the formation of life from non-life) "
Apparently your author has a problem with scientific accuracy.
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.