Exactly. When it comes down to origins, none of was around at the beginning.
Some of us look at the evidence and believe there must have been a designer or creator. Others look at the evidence and reject that conclusion. Some start out with the belief that there was no designer and therefore do not reach the conclusion there is one. Some never really think about it. Often it may depend simply on how we were taught, who taught us, and what were taught. Bringing it back to photography... ;-) Suppose one records an image of a spectacular bird, a beautiful mountain sunrise, a piece of architecture, etc. The image shows evidence of thoughtful composition, correct exposure, and is harmonious, maybe even elegant. No one in their right mind would view the image and believe that it just came about by chance. In fact they would credit the photographer for having produced that image and having seen numerous repeated similar results would conclude that the individual was an accomplished photographer. However the photograph is simply a small 2-D representation of the real thing. It's not my wish to force anyone to believe as I do, because even the Creator I believe exists, has not done that. Tom C. >From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted >Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:06:15 -0400 > >Einstein very much believed in intelligent design. He also did not believe >in Quantum Theory, although he was the guy that came up with it, and it >made atomic energy possible, because it went against his personal beliefs. >Scientists are not demigods, they are humans and no more infallible than >any other human. > >-- >graywolf >http://www.graywolfphoto.com >http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf >"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" >----------------------------------- > > >Tom C wrote: > > Like I said, I'm not holding him up as the end-all/be-all on the >subject. > > > > I used this example simply as an example of a scientist that doesn't >(didn't > > now) accept the dogma of the time, and was able to reach different > > theoretical conclusions with the same set of facts. I realize you're > > referring to the idea that the natural selection in the evolution theory > > makes it not totally random. > > > > I'm pretty sure he understood the concept. Hoyle was referring more to >the > > theory of origins and specifically to life originating on Earth itself. > > > > Tom C. > > > >>> From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > >>> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" <pdml@pdml.net> > >>> Subject: RE: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted > >>> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:53:02 +0100 > >>> > >>> Hoyle is presenting a false dichotomy in that argument. In essence he > >>> says (in that quote) that life arose either by random chance, or by > >>> intelligent design, and these are the only options available. They may > >>> be the only options he could think of, but they're certainly not the > >>> only ones available. Evolution is another option. If Hoyle thought > >>> evolution was random chance then he clearly didn't understand > >>> evolution. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Bob > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >>>> Behalf Of Tom C > >>>> Sent: 13 June 2007 23:33 > >>>> To: pdml@pdml.net > >>>> Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted > >>>> > >>>> graywolf wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hard to accept that you are not somehow special, isn't it. > >>>> Personally I > >>>>> believe random chance over >millions of years is the simplest > >>> answer. > >>>> > >>>> Noted British Astonomer Fred Hoyle wrote (note I'm using this > >>>> as an example > >>>> of a noted and respected scientist, not that I agree with > >>>> everything he says > >>>> or that he's always correct... who is?) > >>>> > >>>> "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this > >>>> matter, without > >>>> being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of > >>>> scientific opinion, one > >>>> arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their > >>>> amazing measure or > >>>> order must be the outcome of intelligent design." > >>>> > >>>> Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required > >>>> set of enzymes > >>>> for even the simplest living cell was one in 10 *40,000 > >>>> power. Since the > >>>> number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny > >>>> by comparison > >>>> (10 *80 power), he argued that even a whole universe full of > >>>> primordial soup > >>>> wouldnt have a chance. He claimed: The notion that not only > >>>> the biopolymer > >>>> but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived > >>>> at by chance in > >>>> a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently > >>>> nonsense of a high > >>>> order. > >>>> > >>>> Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the > >>>> likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might > >>>> assemble a > >>>> Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared > >>>> the chance of > >>>> obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance > >>>> combination of amino > >>>> acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube > >>>> simultaneously. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tom C. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> PDML@pdml.net > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
