Re: OFF TOPIC Annoying recursive hypothesis!
Title: Re: OFF TOPIC Annoying recursive hypothesis! Frank Znidarsek posted; In a message dated 1/4/2005 6:15:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally I do not feel life BEGINS by chance, although the subsequent evolution is plausibly Darwinian. Perhaps an E.T. (not necessarily God) has been Man has come very close to producing synthetic life. We have made proteins, self replicating molecules. It only a matter of time until man creates living matter from non living matter. Will that make man God? Is then a God need to have life? With regards to the mechanism we call life. The probability of even the simplest mechanisms which constitute life occurring by chance is a 1 with 200+ zeros behind it. Let alone subsystems like the eyes and ears. This thread originated with Parksie griping about our pushing to have intelligent design taught in the schools, heaven forbid! I don't mind the idea of survival of the fittest being taught in schools, that is a clearly demonstrated principal. However Darwinism comes down to spontaneous biogenesis which is, IMHO nonsense. Then there is the belief that one species can mutate into another, such that their offspring cannot mate one with another, which has never been observed. Furthermore, I don't think that we have any real understanding of how life works. IMHO, there is an energy called Chi, one component of which comes up from the Earth, and the other which comes down from the sky. Some how they interact with the mechanism to make what we call life. Life has the ability to reset the DNA's program through the sexual fusion process. In most cases, this sorts out all the defects, allowing for an old man and a middle aged woman to make a baby that is truly young. This is why I think that cloning is such a waste of time. Dolly was born a middle aged sheep. Since the gearhead scientists are unable to explain what most of the DNA does they labeled it Junk DNA! It's like me taking a machine apart, since I don't have a good understanding of how this machine works, I label the parts that I don't understand junk. IMHO, this is hubris on a grand scale. With respect to man becoming like G-d, this is the great lie what was told in the Garden of Eden. There is however a quantum jump between our carnal minds and G-d's. It comes down to holiness, or kadosh as we say in Hebrew. HaShem AKA G-d says, be ye holy as I am holy, that's why I'm such a big fan of Torah. The reason that the world is in such a mess is because of Human Evil. Like bugs in a petri dish, we've overgrown, and are poisoning the planet. BTW, there is evidence that the human population is beginning to crash, between sexual transmitted diseases and bad diet. This illustrates two fundamental differences between Parksie's materialistic worldview, and a spiritual worldview which is held by people such as myself. He ignores the fact that life reverses the second law, which should be obvious to someone with his education. He is clueless about the energy element of life, he denies Chi, witness his attacks on energy medicine. This ignorance grows out of his G-dless world view.
Re: OFF TOPIC Annoying recursive hypothesis!
Title: Re: OFF TOPIC Annoying recursive hypothesis! Creationism still dominates evolutionary theory in one important respect: the notion that life and the universe have a beginning. The universe and life may have no ultimate beginning and no ultimate end. The universe and life may be contiguous with each other. Life may evolve but it may never be extinguished. Harry Jed Rothwell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Personally I do not feel life BEGINS by chance, although the subsequent evolution is plausibly Darwinian. Perhaps an E.T. (not necessarily God) has been 'guiding' the evolution of life on this planet. I find this hypothesis intensely annoying! It does not solve the problem; it merely removes it from our planet to some other planet. If ET #1 guided our evolution, do we assume that some other ET (#2) was there to guide ET #1, and did #3 guide #2? It is an infinite recursion. At some point, an intelligent species must have arisen from purely natural causes without intervention by any other species. Since it had to happen at least once, why shouldn't we assume it happened again on earth? The hypothesis is also annoying because it is not falsifiable. Regarding the Darwin quote: Yes he said that, but it has not been demonstrated that any organ exists which could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications. Indeed, every organ I know of still has numerous existing successive slight modifications remaining in primitive species, including eyes, an example Darwin cited. Primitive eyes that can only sense the direction of light are way better than no eyes at all. Plus, anyone who thinks evolution is slow (or it does not exist) should learn about the growing crisis in antibiotic resistant diseases. This illustrates why ignorance is dangerous. We are frittering away the most potent drugs ever invented, mainly using them to keep the cost of meat low in the US. If this continues for a few more generations we will be back to the world as it was before 1940, when ordinary diseases often killed people of all ages. We have already thrown way the opportunity to eliminate tuberculosis, one of the most virulent diseases. - Jed
Re: OFF TOPIC Annoying recursive hypothesis!
Jed Rothwell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Personally I do not feel life BEGINS by chance, although the subsequent evolution is plausibly Darwinian. Perhaps an E.T. (not necessarily God) has been 'guiding' the evolution of life on this planet. I find this hypothesis intensely annoying! It does not solve the problem; it merely removes it from our planet to some other planet. If ET #1 guided our evolution, do we assume that some other ET (#2) was there to guide ET #1, and did #3 guide #2? It is an infinite recursion. At some point, an intelligent species must have arisen from purely natural causes without intervention by any other species. Since it had to happen at least once, why shouldn't we assume it happened again on earth? Sure, but this does not rule out the possibility of an E.T. having played some other role in the evolutionary history of our planet. There is more to evolution then the evolution of 'intelligence'. Harry
