---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :

 Ann, what you say makes sense.  Sal hasn't much more of clue about the origins 
of life than anyone else.  He has his own theory which may, or may not be 
correct, or likely, elements of which may be correct 

 He just likes to present it as being authoritative, and then mock any theory 
that doesn't follow his strict evolutionary process.
 

 I think he is mistaken.  But like he says, perhaps science will help give us a 
better understanding.
 

 I think there are still many open ended questions about the origin and 
development of life, and the theory is constantly being updated.
 

 Just like theory of the gravity waves formed an instant after the big bang, 
that he was so enthusiastic about, until is was discredited a few months later.

M: I haven't been following this too closely so forgive me if I am in left 
field,. This caught my eye. I don't believe that evolutionary theory is 
comparable to the specific theory you are referring to above. Evolutionary 
theory is the backbone of our whole understanding in biology and the life 
sciences. Whereas some geophysics theories may have a few data points 
supporting them because of the scales involved and other difficulties, 
evolutionary theory has literally millions of supporting data points supporting 
it. It will get refined in specific cases, but the chance that it will be 
overturned by even a large number of conflicting data points is very slim. 
Especially since right now we have zero and we have been looking for a while 
now. Every fossil we find and advancement in genetics  supports the predictions 
theory.

I thought Sal's point was an objection to a teleological  view of evolution 
where God is somehow setting up a system with a known outcome. (By God one must 
suppose or he has to take down his  Omniscience Trophy with the gold 
All-Seeing-Eye at the top that reminds me of Mordor.) We have so many examples 
of random mutation leading to evolutionary advantage this also seems unlikely. 
Just look at the our own embryological development. Is it really necessary for 
us to look like a fish in an early stage? It is a legacy of our past. And to 
say that a being set it in motion knowing that we would become the monkeys 
typing on these keyboards sometime is the same as saying :
"then magic happened." Which is really not saying very much at all.







 

 Now for Barry, all this is just useful as a mocking opportunity and material 
for a new "rant"
 

 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :

 Salyavin, 

 You seem to think that your reasoning is the only right way.   We can ask you 
the same thing.  What made you think you are correct and the pope is wrong?
 

 John, if your name is "The Pope" then you're already working against great 
odds with these guys. Just giving them a whiff of anything resembling God or 
religion or cause or order is enough to give them the heebee jeebies. Give them 
a little space, they can't seem to handle too much reality.
 

 Reality, LOL!
 

 More below:
 

 Hope it's of better quality than the above.
 

 (It wasn't)
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

 

He sounds like a terminal dimwit to me, if he accepts that we could have 
evolved this complexity without god's help then why does he think we need god 
at all? 

 Listen to this:
 

 The pope explained that God "created beings and let them develop in accordance 
with the internal laws that He has given to each one, so that they could arrive 
at their fulfillment,"
 

 Brilliant statement. Think about it, don't react to it, Sal.
 

 How can you create beings and THEN let them develop? There's only one law that 
governs all evolution and that is the principle of random genetic mutations 
creating genes that get spread through the population, or not. 
 

 There is no fulfillment plan in nature. The guy gives a talk to an alleged 
pontifical scientific academy and they don't seem to know the first thing about 
any of it.  Either the complexity we see in life was arrived at without help or 
god decided what everything was going to be like. You can't have your cake and 
eat it.
 

 Claiming that god gave a plan to each being for them to fulfill means that god 
must understand the workings of beings and must have planned for every creature 
that exists. This means that god holds all knowledge and the evidence we have 
of the evolution of complexity and intelligence effectively didn't happen over 
millions of years but were decided in advance by a supernatural being. 
 

 The pope is therefore a creationist. We always suspected this given his job 
title, but it must be such an intellectual embarrassment for him I'm not 
surprised he tries to hide behind some sort of scientific facade with his 
academy. I don;t suppose the followers will object though, as long as they can 
carry on thinking there's a role for their creator that seems to fit in with 
science they'll be happy. 
 

 Just a tad reactive are we? What happened, did some nun take a ruler to you 
when you were young and sensitive and innocent and open to the mysteries of the 
world around you? When, exactly, did you feel it necessary to grasp onto slide 
rules and test tubes to grant you the security you sought in your confusion?
 



  














Reply via email to