Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   flying spaghetti monster flap in kansas
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 148 (308532)
05-02-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coragyps
05-02-2006 1:56 PM


Heh. I'll bet you didn't think anyone actually remembered all the words of wisdom the high priests and priestesses of Pinkness wrote all those years ago, did ya'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 05-02-2006 1:56 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Coragyps, posted 05-02-2006 2:59 PM Quetzal has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 17 of 148 (308543)
05-02-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Quetzal
05-02-2006 2:28 PM


I didn't even remember all those prophetic utterances myself!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Quetzal, posted 05-02-2006 2:28 PM Quetzal has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 18 of 148 (308567)
05-02-2006 5:26 PM


I have to admit that the idea of Flying Spaghetti Monster being the creator of all things is pretty far fetched but it just can't be any more far fetched than the idea that we and this universe came into being by some cosmic accident.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-02-2006 10:48 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 20 by EZscience, posted 05-02-2006 11:01 PM GDR has replied
 Message 37 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-04-2006 3:05 PM GDR has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 19 of 148 (308644)
05-02-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
05-02-2006 5:26 PM


accident?
What would you define as an accident?
And yes, it's probably off-topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 05-02-2006 5:26 PM GDR has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 20 of 148 (308655)
05-02-2006 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
05-02-2006 5:26 PM


Accidents
Here is the beginning of a rather unproductive argument regarding what does and does not constitute an accident. I hope, for everyones's sake, that we don't have to cover this pedantic ground again.
GDR writes:
... can't be any more far fetched than the idea that we and this universe came into being by some cosmic accident
Pray expound to us your reasoning that this scenario should seem to you so improbable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 05-02-2006 5:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by GDR, posted 05-03-2006 5:13 PM EZscience has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 21 of 148 (308842)
05-03-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by EZscience
05-02-2006 11:01 PM


Re: Accidents
All I'm saying is that the idea that the obvious design in this world came about without any outside intervention requires more faith than I am able to muster.
I am not a YEC and don't have enough knowledge of biology to have any kind of informed opinion on evolution. I'm not saying that ID is science, as a matter of fact I would say that it isn't, but the non scientific evidence for ID is in my view overwhelming.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by EZscience, posted 05-02-2006 11:01 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-03-2006 5:33 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 05-03-2006 5:35 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 24 by EZscience, posted 05-03-2006 10:38 PM GDR has replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 22 of 148 (308846)
05-03-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by GDR
05-03-2006 5:13 PM


Re: Accidents
the obvious design in this world
There's your first problem.
But I think a lot of us have asked those questions about why we (and everything else is here), etc. Seems like honest inquiry to me.
Cheers and good searching!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by GDR, posted 05-03-2006 5:13 PM GDR has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 23 of 148 (308847)
05-03-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by GDR
05-03-2006 5:13 PM


Re: Accidents
GDR,
... but the non scientific evidence for ID is in my view overwhelming.
There is no evidential, logically valid evidence of ID at all. Given that this is the case, quite what you find "overwhelming" about a notion that is untestable & unfalsifiable is puzzling.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by GDR, posted 05-03-2006 5:13 PM GDR has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 24 of 148 (308928)
05-03-2006 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by GDR
05-03-2006 5:13 PM


Re: Accidents
Hi GDR.
I think the other 2 respondents to your post picked out the same two statements that I would have.
To postulate design, once you have a good understanding of how evolution works, seems to me far more improbable (not to mention unecessary) than any 'chance-based' explanation, especially given that the actual mechanisms explaining such changes have been clearly delineated and verified by observartion and experimentation. This can not be said for any ID interpretation of how nature 'works'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by GDR, posted 05-03-2006 5:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 05-03-2006 11:05 PM EZscience has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 25 of 148 (308935)
05-03-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by EZscience
05-03-2006 10:38 PM


Re: Accidents
My understanding of the theory of evolution is that it occurred due to genetic mutations. Speciation has been shown to work and the theory is that even macroevolution is just a whole lot of speciation occurring over time.
It would seem logical that evolution would occur gradually but consistently over time. However, most of it seems to have occurred during the relatively short Cambrian period which strikes me a somewhat strange if there is nothing other than natural causes for evolution.
These genetic mutations could have occurred as you would say by natural selection. I think it is far more likely given the design involved that these genetic mutations were either designed initially or guided throughout the process by an external intelligence.
Given human consciousness and our sense of right and wrong, love and hate etc, I find it extremely difficult to believe that it too just evolved naturally. It seems so much more likely to be a part of a much larger design, designed by a much larger, (metaphorically speaking), designer.
I contend that with all the complexity and beauty of the science and math of QM and GR that they scream out the fact that there is obviously design involved.
None of this is scientific as such. To me it's just obvious and as I said to believe that all of this and more happened without any outside intelligence being involved, requires a great deal more faith than I am capable of.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by EZscience, posted 05-03-2006 10:38 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2006 11:19 PM GDR has replied
 Message 60 by EZscience, posted 05-05-2006 12:18 PM GDR has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 148 (308939)
05-03-2006 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
05-03-2006 11:05 PM


Re: Accidents
These genetic mutations could have occurred as you would say by natural selection.
I don't understand how people get something so simple so wrong, over and over again.
Selection doesn't cause mutations. Selection is the fact that not every organism survives to reproduce, or reproduces the same number of offspring.
I think it is far more likely given the design involved that these genetic mutations were either designed initially or guided throughout the process by an external intelligence.
Well, we know that mutations occur at random, over time. We know that they're not something programmed into the DNA, laying there in wait. Mutations happen; they're not designed or preprogrammmed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 05-03-2006 11:05 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 05-03-2006 11:41 PM crashfrog has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 27 of 148 (308951)
05-03-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
05-03-2006 11:19 PM


Re: Accidents
crashfrog writes:
Mutations happen; they're not designed or preprogrammmed.
Mutations happen; they are designed or preprogrammed.
Neither of us can make those statements and prove that they are true. Neither statement is scientific. It is scientific to say that mutations happen but to say why they happen is not.
You have looked at the world and come to one conclusion and I have come to another. I just think that your position stretches credulity more than mine does but that isn't scientific either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2006 11:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2006 11:56 PM GDR has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 148 (308956)
05-03-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by GDR
05-03-2006 11:41 PM


Re: Accidents
Neither of us can make those statements and prove that they are true.
Well, no, that's false. Many, many experiments have been performed that show that mutations aren't the environmental activation of already-present genetic programming; they're novel genetic sequences that arise, at random, in organisms.
It is scientific to say that mutations happen but to say why they happen is not.
Mutations aren't magic. They happen because DNA, like any molecule, follows the laws of physics. Sometimes mutations happen because UV radiation causes two adjacent thyamines to form a dimer. Sometimes they happen when reactive molecules damage a nucleotide base or two.
What would make you think that the origin of mutations couldn't be a scientific question? Seems perfectly scientific to me.
You have looked at the world and come to one conclusion and I have come to another. I just think that your position stretches credulity more than mine does but that isn't scientific either.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. The fact is, mutations are not pre-programmed into an organism's DNA; they're changes that happen to the DNA, caused at random by one of a number of perfectly natural physical events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 05-03-2006 11:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 05-04-2006 12:32 AM crashfrog has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 29 of 148 (308963)
05-04-2006 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
05-03-2006 11:56 PM


Re: Accidents
crashfrog writes:
Mutations aren't magic. They happen because DNA, like any molecule, follows the laws of physics. Sometimes mutations happen because UV radiation causes two adjacent thyamines to form a dimer. Sometimes they happen when reactive molecules damage a nucleotide base or two.
You keep confusing an explanation of how things happen for why they happen. You are right, they follow the laws of physics, but you can't say why the laws of physics exist at all. I'm convinced that the laws of physics are the way they are because they are designed that way, whereas you are convinced that they're not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2006 11:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ReverendDG, posted 05-04-2006 12:55 AM GDR has replied
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 05-04-2006 8:51 AM GDR has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 30 of 148 (308969)
05-04-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by GDR
05-04-2006 12:32 AM


Re: Accidents
I'm convinced that the laws of physics are the way they are because they are designed that way, whereas you are convinced that they're not.
how are you convinced? whats your basis for this belief? To me there is no evidence of design, if there is design its so suble to the point that it doesn't look designed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 05-04-2006 12:32 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 05-04-2006 1:14 AM ReverendDG has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024