Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
For the sake of argument, God does not exist – just luck and nature. So now we are just left with the puzzle of ‘how’ and science is the key. Once we have put the puzzle together, by way of science, we shall have understanding and control of nature.
Would man then become God?
How does that apple taste?
If only life were as simple as say, rocket science...
The other copies are not the same gene.
Nice political statement. No I don't, I'm not you.
All of these experiments were carried out using beams of individual photons, and there is no way in which the results can be explained by using classical physics. They lay bare the mysteriousness of quantum mechanics in all its glory, and in particular demonstrate its "non local" nature -- the way in which a photon starting out on its journey behaves in a different way for each experimental setup, as if it knew in advance what kind of experiment it was about to go through.
Don't worry if you don't understand this. Richard Feynman didn't, and he warned "do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."
A pre-biotic soup fits right in with that, however I don't believe that there is evidence for that condition. However, God made the waters produce certain types of life. Is there any evidence that the waters did not produce life?
There may be. Look at all the evidence of life deep in the subsurface and in space.
So you can stretch and squeeze Genesis to fit current evolution theory. But you still want to eliminate "random". Why?
It's an idea older than Darwin. Lamark, and others before him, promoted these type of transformation ideas.
For the same reason Dr. Shapiro does, it doesn't appear to be random.
Yes, and even Darwin had something to say on the subject in his 1859 revision.
...by the direct action of external conditions, and by variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection.
How would that negate waters producing it also? Occam is not evidence or proof only a principle. If it is used which one of the two you mentioned above do you knock out?
There is a lot that appears to be random and I'd be greatly surprised if Shapiro is blind to that. The question still remains, what bothers you about random? If God can't be in the random, there's a lot of the universe not under God's instruction.
The question may remain, but I answered it. The answer was essentially that random does not fit.
Bet you don't like quantum mechanics either.
It's still jumping the gun. Some mechanisms are less random than others. This does not eliminate random. And there is no overall "momentum" toward non-random.
Erratic particular behavior is subtly guided!
The Big Guy? Or Maxwell's Demon?
No.(to your bet Yes to liking QM) Random fits there.
The demon's in the details.
Is that like being less pregnant?
If only evolution researchers shared your intuition!
In that sense, there is no such thing as random in evolution and you've spent a considerable amount of effort arguing a straw man.
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.