Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
PH,
I pass up on lots of threads.
Go take a break and chill out. Ride a bike, read a book, watch a movie, play with the wife, make a pot of coffee, anything...
Dont get so worked up.
I know what you mean. I'm sick of these Gene Men playing God and corrupting sacred DNA beasts.
A profound question deserving a profound answer.
No zot.
This thread is a mirror of the idiocy we see on DU. I refer you to the collected works of PJ-Comix's DUmmie FUnnies.
I don't know, evolution could be partly true imo only, but not in its entirety. You can't crash into a wall you build around your theory unless you bang your head on it.
Science could have been the god of forces Daniel was talking about because there was no word that I know of for science. The god of forces could be something else.
Science will end up being a false god because eventually they will attempt to and perhaps succeed in extending life to the point where it seems eternal. They have already created the means of destroying the planet and everything on it. It was allowed to happen, and man in his own wisdom may not be able to exercise proper control over it.
Christ will return to prevent the complete destruction of life and the earth. He told us so. He also told us for the sake of the elect, those days would be shortened. I don't want to engage in speculative talk about just who the elect are (this church, that church). Broadly interpreted, it would mean those who place their faith and trust in Him. I'm putting my money on the words Christ spoke.
you miss the point.
Evolution of life on Earth is independent from whatever mechanism caused the universe to be.
If the BBT is correct, fine - it produced a material universe which some 11billion years later became conducive to life developing here and elsewhere.
If the BBT is incorrect, then some other mechanism caused a universe to come into being which became, about 3 billion years ago, conducive to life developing here and elsewhere.
Evolution IS dependent upon the conditions, yes, but not on how those conditions came to be - that is what is meant by "Big Bang = nothing to do witrh evolution"
has no one ever explained this to you before?
It already has. Look at fetal tissue research and “stem cells.” Frankenstein medicine...
What if these kooks create something we cannot get rid of? I have never heard any of these august pseudo-intellectuals ask that question...
An assumption on your part...
The only evidence suggests all life, both flora and fauna, has DNA. DNA is the singularity of all life.
The “Big Bang” theory rests upon the assumption of a singularity, a point where all matter was concentrated to initiate the event.
Both the “Big Bang” and evolution theories are really inadvertent admissions by the scientific community that the universe and life are immaculate conceptions.
Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it...
Agreed, and the examples might multiply. What about genetic modification of crops and gene splicing? It's too soon to tell whether it will be boon or bust.
I prefer my apples á la Eden. I don't have a leg to stand on but my faith.
from a "life is all there is" standpoint?
1. why not?
2. we like to understand things, for the sake of understanding them.
3. we like to understand things in order to come up with technical solutions to problems which make life less pleasant than it could be.
4. Understanding how the mechanisms of life work might just possibly teach us how the mechanisms of death work, and allow us to switch off those genetic factors leading to decrepitude and death.
all, from a life-is-all-there-is, perfectly sound reasons based entirely on natural self-interest.
happy, now?
Here's a nice commentary regarding Harvard's attempt to reduce life’s origin to a “series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.”
That sounds pretty good, but can you remove intelligence from the analogy and make it work? You're equating random selection with intelligence. An intelligence is manipulating the decks to bring about a desired result. The desired result isn't known in real life and there's (supposedly) no intelligence guiding it.
ouchies. brought out the big guns.
Many Conservatives believe that threads such as this are actually helpful with respect to national politics. On the other hand, it offers no new material for most of the scientists I used to work with; they believe the GOP is anti-science. (To be sure, many of these scientists voted against Kerry though; there are few worse things than being anti-science, but Kerry slam dunked that.)
You:
Right, let's stop this article right there. Whoever wrote it needs to go back to school. Or maybe he hasn't got there yet.
Me:
Please elaborate on your objection without the insults tossed in.
"What a load of horse manure"
I know a farmer who has a sign posted on the fence out by the road that says, "Free Hay & Oats - Used Once".
So what part of the posted commentary is smelly?
" teach us how the mechanisms of death work, and allow us to switch off those genetic factors leading to decrepitude and death. "
Hey, hurry up. will ya?
Reasoning skills? Living faith? :-)
Enlighten me then. If life didn't come from non-life, than where did it come from?
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.