Posted on 07/30/2007 2:01:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Geologists have found the remains of a huge underground rainforest hidden in a coal mine in Illinois. The fossil forest, buried by an earthquake 300 million years ago, contains giant versions of several plant types alive today.
...
Also surprising is the presence of remains from mangrove-like plants. "It was always assumed that mangrove plants had evolved fairly recently," says Falcon-Lang.
(Excerpt) Read more at bioedonline.org ...
Disregarding your non scientific suppositions, so what?
The fact remains that miniscule changes in diverse physical parameters would disllow carbon life forms in the one and only universe we can speak about with some small amount of authority. That is the Dr's claim and it is true. How you feel about it is up to you.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. Try this:
If God as creator is truth...."
You disagree?
How would you falsify string theory?
Well, I guess that settles it then. William Provine and Richard Dawkins have had their say. The theory of evolution is really just a ruse to permit evolutionary biologists worldwide to party wantonly in biology building basements.
By the way, you might want to conduct a little test of this idea. Go to this site — http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/
Plug the word “evolution” into the search engine. Of the 84,789 articles available for you to read, count up the number that talk about “the main focus of evolution being anti-God and living a life with no ethical basis.” Draw your conclusion.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. You have your mind set in one direction and I the other. See I respect your right to think on this how you see it. You on the other hand seem to become angry when your thoughts are questioned. That seems anathema to the structure of this forum.
Quite so and your post well supports my position that Dr. Townes exceeds his ability to rationally postulate what constitutes a hospitable universe. He makes a speculation so lacking in observable evidences that either confirm or deny the vast possibilities it encompasses that it isn't even useful as a raw hypothesis. It is a pile of assumptions and that isn't science it's mental masturbation. Fodder for Sci Fi at best.
Not all life is carbon based. Silicon based life has recently been found. The parameters of what physics will and will not support life are not fully known as should be obvious from the continual discovery of new parameters and that only this one planet. The idea that we have examined any place other than this planet with any degree of depth or breadth is ludicrous. An inability to recognize one’s limitations is indicative of an inability to reason clearly. What constitutes “life” hasn’t even been reasonably well defined by science. Reasonable scientists readily admit that.
Oh brother. Not the persecution card again.
Perhaps you can point out what in my posts constituted "anger" and an "anathema to the structure of this forum."
And perhaps you can also explain how your "respect" is reflected in your use of "Darwinist" as a pejorative and your claim that a scientific theory regarding changes in allele frequency really has as its main focus "anti God" and "living life how you choose with no ethical basis."
I understand if you don't want to wade through some 84,000 scientific papers that demonstrate your claim to be patently silly. Just say so. But don't fall back on the embarrassingly hypocritical persecution card that is played so often by creationists. It's just reeks of -- well -- liberal whining.
"Seems to" is not science. Period! That is the very definition of "assumption."
Liberal whining? I am hardly liberal and no persecution card being played on this end. Bottom line is you have your line of thinking and I have mine. What about that is whining. The fact you responded in this nature appears to show your inability to respect someone elses view. That is the trademark liberal MO. See how this works.
You are one odd duck.
In case you failed to notice, debate, give and take, disagreement, point and counter-point, discourse, etc. is the order of the day in this forum.
You entered the debate, you stated your position that acceptance of the theory of evolution is equivalent to being "anti-God" and ethically unmoored (a fairly inflammatory and disrespectful position), your view was challenged, and now you claim, with no apparent irony, that just about any response at all to this inflammatory and disrespectful view demonstrates a (ta-da) deficiency of respect. Get over it.
Tell you what, set all that aside, and go read through the scientific articles I pointed out. Then we can resume with the substance of your contention that the theory of evolution has "as its main focus anti-God" and "living life how you choose with no ethical basis."
How would you falsify string theory?
Beats me; its not my field. Ask the physics folks.
Now name calling: Not anything malicious, but none the less, I tried to end this little encounter a few posts ago.
I was referencing the positions noted. Not my basis but some in the scientific community. I could and will read some of the articals just as I have in the past, so you can have some peace of mind. However, I could read many articles supporting climate change but that would not change my view that they are wrong on mans influence.
Great. And maybe you can get back to me on those you locate that discuss the "anti-God" and ethics-free focus of the theory of evolution so we can discuss them.
So what?!?
It points out quite clearly that the "perfect fit" idea is NOT evidence for a Creator!
Actually, you point out why it is fodder for purely Speculative Fiction, not Science Fiction. :-)
I just thought of a double-whammy analogy...
Picture a country where there's a lottery of everyone at birth, and only the winners are allowed to live and collect their prize--all non-winners are immediately executed. Without getting into the odds of the lottery and payouts and all (irrelevant to the point), that means that there might be only one survivor..or maybe more than one.
But.... EVERY survivor would look at himself and say, "Wow! EVERYONE is a winner! The Universe is SO perfect! It must be a rigged game!" And that's what we're like.
If we had developed in a universe that was unable to support life, we wouldn't be here. Even though it's chance, the mere fact that we can observe makes it look like a fixed game. No way can you prove a Creator from within the system, when we have no way of seeing into other universes and know if we're more than a random mote that got lucky out of many tries.
Why is this a double-whammy? Because it also teaches a lesson about Natural Selection. :-)
Well, well -- as I live and breathe -- somebody who makes sense, for once. I have argued that until I was blue in the face on a half dozen forums. And the bull heads on both sides have never budged an inch. One side always always cut it short with "God has nothing to do with anything that ever happened." And the other side sys tht He created everything just as it is today. No listenign to any discussion of whether or not each can be an integral part of the other, working together.
So, I simply don't argue it any more, I just sit back and enjoy the fight.
Exactly, so what? What your theoretical observer thinks is relegated to the so what bin. Your observers thoughts have no bearing on whether or not carbon based life forms can exist without carbon. What is so hard about that????
It points out quite clearly that the "perfect fit" idea is NOT evidence for a Creator!
The anthropic principle is neither evidence for or against the Creator. It is simply observable and repeatable fact that absent carbon there are no carbon based life forms.
No heavy elements, no carbon based life forms. What's to argue with?
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.