Posted on 10/22/2007 9:07:09 PM PDT by LibWhacker
You are reading these words right now because 600 million years ago, an aquatic animal called a Hydra developed light-receptive genes—the origin of animal vision.
It wasn't exactly 20-20 vision back then though.
Hydras, a genus of freshwater animals that are kin to corals and jellyfish, measure only a few millimeters in diameter and have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara studied the genes associated with vision (called opsins) in these tiny creatures and found opsin proteins all over their bodies.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
It is you that has a philosophy, not crystals - as far as I can tell there are no crystals taking part in this debate.
No, they crystalized when uniform substances (usually a fluid) solidified.
So you believe one day out of nothingness "they crystalized when uniform substances (usually a fluid) solidified". Where did the uniform substances come from? Were they created (something from nothing) or did they always exist (they just are)...in a debate related to origin, it is illogical to start in the middle.
I don't understand the question.
That is becoming clear.
Nothing "created" mass, mass is simply a property of matter, and is a function of energy in the equation outlined.
so Einstein created mass
No.
what created mass.
Nothing. See above.
? You also claim mass is not a property of a three dimensional world - are you claiming there are one or two dimensional worlds with mass?
You can posit 26 dimensions if you'd like (and many physicists have and do), and mass will still be a property of matter.
No, I don't believe that crystals crsytalize out of nothingness, I believe they crystalize out of uniform substances.
Where did the uniform substances come from?
Well, that would depend on the crystal now, wouldn't it? In the case of crystaline water ice, I think the uniform substance would be the water in my ice trays.
Now be honest here: do you have a point to any of this? Why does this feel like a college bull session.
Can we agree that nothing in nature can come to "be" unless it was caused by something?
If so, consider what could cause nature itself. More nature? Not possible because it would need to be caused as well. Rather it must be something that did not need to be caused, which by our premise means it was not part of nature.
Thus, if we trust the premise, and we trust human reason, we can trust that:
1) Nature was caused by something that needs no cause itself.
2) The something that needs no cause itself and which caused nature transcends nature.
No, actually we can't. Not that I think that would necessarily matter, because I suspect you don't believe that either.
OK, then what in nature can come to be without cause?
Yeah, the question is like the kid who puts the stick into the spinning bike tire
In 600 million years, you think they would have improved
If it ain't broke, why fix it? Hydra are doing just fine... they hit on a formula 600 million years ago and it still works. There's no need to improve it.
Bookmarked for later.
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.