A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 23:04 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-2D1A4D.20355902082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > Yes, well there is your problem. If you seriously think that God is an > intelligent designer, You're the obvious exception. -Greg
From: Carbon on 2 Aug 2010 23:01 On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:51:44 -0700, dene wrote: > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:82774e2a-602c-40a4-9919-55a0a9502701(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 2, 5:33 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:18ae96af- >> e4b9-4bd3-838d-6b74c67da875(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Aug >> 2, 3:00 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message >>> news:alangbaker-FD89BC.11301202082010(a)news.shawcable.com... >>> >>>> No life has ever been created on earth? What does that mean? >>> >>> Not since the beginning. Reproduction...yes. But organic life >>> resulting from the right mix of matter....no. >> >> Are you saying that every species on earth today has always been >> here? > > I think there were different timelines. Obviously dinosaurs preceded > mankind. It's just odd to me that the religion of science cannot > answer why no new life is manifesting itself, even though conditions > are ripe for it. To claim that science is a religion is to misunderstand the basic principle of science. You observe. You theorize. You test. The best science wins. ID is creationism gone to night school. There is a reason that the vast majority of scientists don't take it seriously. There's no rigor. It's just a bunch of unprovable assertions.
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 23:08 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4c57869a$0$15498$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:51:44 -0700, dene wrote: > > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:82774e2a-602c-40a4-9919-55a0a9502701(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 2, 5:33 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:18ae96af- > >> e4b9-4bd3-838d-6b74c67da875(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Aug > >> 2, 3:00 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > >>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >>> news:alangbaker-FD89BC.11301202082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > >>> > >>>> No life has ever been created on earth? What does that mean? > >>> > >>> Not since the beginning. Reproduction...yes. But organic life > >>> resulting from the right mix of matter....no. > >> > >> Are you saying that every species on earth today has always been > >> here? > > > > I think there were different timelines. Obviously dinosaurs preceded > > mankind. It's just odd to me that the religion of science cannot > > answer why no new life is manifesting itself, even though conditions > > are ripe for it. > > To claim that science is a religion is to misunderstand the basic > principle of science. You observe. You theorize. You test. The best > science wins. > > ID is creationism gone to night school. There is a reason that the vast > majority of scientists don't take it seriously. There's no rigor. It's > just a bunch of unprovable assertions. Fine. I'm awaiting your answers to my questions. -Greg
From: Carbon on 2 Aug 2010 23:21 On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:08:58 -0700, dene wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4c57869a$0$15498$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:51:44 -0700, dene wrote: >>> "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:82774e2a-602c-40a4-9919-55a0a9502701(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >>> On Aug 2, 5:33 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >>>> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:18ae96af- >>>> e4b9-4bd3-838d-6b74c67da875(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Aug >>>> 2, 3:00 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:alangbaker-FD89BC.11301202082010(a)news.shawcable.com... >>>>> >>>>>> No life has ever been created on earth? What does that mean? >>>>> >>>>> Not since the beginning. Reproduction...yes. But organic life >>>>> resulting from the right mix of matter....no. >>>> >>>> Are you saying that every species on earth today has always been >>>> here? >>> >>> I think there were different timelines. Obviously dinosaurs >>> preceded mankind. It's just odd to me that the religion of science >>> cannot answer why no new life is manifesting itself, even though >>> conditions are ripe for it. >> >> To claim that science is a religion is to misunderstand the basic >> principle of science. You observe. You theorize. You test. The best >> science wins. >> >> ID is creationism gone to night school. There is a reason that the >> vast majority of scientists don't take it seriously. There's no >> rigor. It's just a bunch of unprovable assertions. > > Fine. I'm awaiting your answers to my questions. About the timelines arguments? Speciation sounds more compelling (less magical) to me. Also, I'm not saying that what you believe is bad. I suppose it would be nice to be able to believe there was some god who knew and cared about us. But it's much more likely that we arrived where we are by chance, that there is no kindly old man, that our lives have very little inherent meaning, et cetera. I am fine that most people would prefer to believe something more soothing. But myself, how I can not believe what is most likely to be the truth?
From: Don Kirkman on 3 Aug 2010 02:02
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:38:11 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > >"Don Kirkman" <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote in message >news:piie56d6tqub7o073in4vu2bj587t5qmv5(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:17:43 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> >> wrote: >> >It is not easy to find physical evidence. The transcending mutatations >> >fossils between species should far outweigh the fossils for existing or >> >extinct species. Yet there is virtually nothing in the fossil record. >> >There is evolution within species....the evidence....but not from one >> >species to another. >> You've got several assumptions packed into your point. First, there >> may be a quantum downward jump between the numbers of *failed* >> mutations and the numbers of successful ones. (Think genetic >> diseases, hardly an unqualified success. And there were the saurians, >> a huge success until the conditions changed faster than they could >> adapt.) >Is there a record of any successful mutations, alive and able to reproduce >today? You may have missed it, but a lot of medications have become ineffective because the bacteria or viruses they were used against developed resistance against the drugs, rendering them less effective or even useless. Those bacteria and viruses reproduce today. You may have missed the mutations among humans that produced different hair and skin color, different amounts of hair, different skull and facial features during the last 100 millennia or less (mutations within species). Last I heard humans were alive and reproducing around the world. You may have missed Darwin's seminal work on how different species or subspecies of finches evolved on some Chilean islands. Last time anybody visited the islands the finches were still there, and still different on different islands. >> Second, there were arguably (I'd even venture "almost certainly") >> more species that vanished leaving no fossil remains or whose fossil >> remains have yet to be discovered than the number of fossilized >> species we know of. The fossil record is a series of instantaneous >> snapshots, not a full length movie. But isn't it amazing that each >> new find seems to fit somewhere in the range of what we knew >> already--based on DNA and physical characteristics? >> >> DNA and physical morphology both point pretty strongly to humans >> evolving from the same type/group of ancestrals that the rest of the >> primates did. Man didn't come from a monkey, but man came from the >> same roots as his companions on the primate tree. > >> The fossils, of course, are sorted out into species and groups by the >> academics, but the evidence is strong that newer species are usually >> modifications of older ones. > >Modifications within a species. I have no problem accepting this. It's >what primates (and other established species) were prior that I question. >Mathemetically, there should be an abundant fossil record for the surviving >mutuations that transitioned from one species to another. It's already been pointed out to you how many species there are even on the hominid tree alone. And I've already argued that we simply have no idea how many species there may have been over the eons or what proportion of them left fossils that have been discovered and described, so we can't know how abundant they should be. >> And astrophysicists are making truly astounding discoveries about the >> events of the last 13.75 �0.17 billion years, ranging from the >> unimaginably small to the biggest bang of them all. > >I have no problem accepting the idea of an ancient earth and even more >ancient universe. Perhaps, by design, it was born out of an explosion. Perhaps, but it's only speculation. The fact of the explosion and the resultant universes seems to be pretty well supported. -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net |