Here's my theory of Purpose

For all the aetheists and evolutionists here's "my" theory. The theory of purpose. As we all know trees give off carbon dioxide we expel carbon dioxide and use the oxygen that they expel. Just one of all the examples of how we interact with our enviornment accordingly and also obviously the simplest example.
Here's my first point for my arguement: If a botonist wants to grow a particular plant say a tropical flower from Hawaii in a place such as Alaska, doesn't he have to replicate the same kind of living enviornment in order for the plant to live and thrive? Some plants and animals are so delicate that in order to reproduce certain conditons must be met. But even the hardiest of plants and microbes need certain things and conditions in order to just continue to exist. Where does the Big Bang theory and evolution allow for these types of absolutes? And even though we see existance today of adaptation on some species parts where is the evolution? Where is the three legged toad adapting to it's enviornment , becomming successful as a three legged toad then immersing it's oxygen breathing body back into the water to no longer use it's lungs but to evolve into a whole new creature?
If we ultimately came from the water then why aren't we returnning to our watery origins?
The notion that because dolphins and whales skeletons have "hands" means that they came from and then went back to the water can also be interpretted that the "hands" are used by the dolphins and whales purposefully with their muscles and fins in order to move so dynamically. In short they were made that way from the beginng.
All of what exists on earth above and beyond it all has a scope of purpose. Be it from the tinniest of water molecules that condense to form raindrops to the largest of mammals that can eat some of the smallest of organisms, EVERYTHING has purpose!
So intricate and so beautifully detailed it's all like a brilliant dance choreagraphed not a detail left out~(and if details were off by even a fraction say oxygen content we wouldn't be here)Randomness?! Me thinks Not.
So where does evolution fit into all of this? It doesn't, it takes a Creator to invoke purpose.
There are so many questions regardding purpose and the hows and the why's that evolution simply can't even touch upon.
What about love and feelings and morality and spirit?
We are not a one dimension being and again purpose comes into play.
So in conclusion without purpose we simply would not exist~
Thanks for Taking The time to read this And God Bless~

[QUOTE][b]Where does the Big Bang theory and evolution allow for these types of absolutes?[/QUOTE][/b]The orchid can grow in exacting conditions because those conditions were already present before it evolved. You are looking at it the wrong way, starting with the organism and trying to 'create' an environment to suit it. Nature works in the opposite way, starting with the environment and evolving an organism to fit it. The "exact specifications" were already there, the orchid came along later. If the environment were different, the orchid would be different, and you would still use the same argument. Hence, you used flawed logic. [QUOTE][b]Where is the three legged toad[/QUOTE][/b]I would think that a three-legged toed would not be competant to meet the demands of its environment, and thus would not be selected for. [QUOTE][b]If we ultimately came from the water then why aren't we returnning to our watery origins?[/QUOTE][/b](1) Because the ecological niches in the oceans have already been filled by sharks and our fellow mammals, who got there before we did(2) large bodies of water historically do not play a significant role in the ecology of primates (3) the question is about as silly as asking why no polka-dotted elephants have evolved, the answer is that NS and mutation did not favor the change. [QUOTE][b]The notion that because dolphins and whales skeletons have "hands" means that they came from and then went back to the water....In short they were made that way from the beginng.[/QUOTE][/b]The fact that there are some transitionals along the way rules that out completely. I'm sure the point can be disputed but it certainly does not look that way to me. Also the vestigial legs are difficult to account for, though I'm sure that point can also be disputed, but it looks like evolution is the simplest explanation and the most well-supported by the available evidence (anatomy of extant creatures and fossils of extinct ones). [QUOTE][b]Be it from the tinniest of water molecules that condense to form raindrops to the largest of mammals that can eat some of the smallest of organisms, EVERYTHING has purpose![/QUOTE][/b]That's because evolution, like capitalism, generally drives towards efficiency, filling every available niche. However, this efficiency can be rather disturbing at times. Intrauterine cannibalism in sharks is a particularly disgusting example. [QUOTE][b]Randomness?![/QUOTE][/b]No, evolution, of course. See my above example with the orchid and my comment on the logical fallacy you used. [QUOTE][b]It doesn't, it takes a Creator to invoke purpose.[/QUOTE][/b]Then I can name all sorts of gross stuff and you can give each of them divine purpose? [QUOTE][b]What about love and feelings and morality and spirit?[/QUOTE][/b]These things are irrelevant to evolution just as they are to gravity. Natural science does not deal with 'love', 'feelings', 'morality', or 'spirit' so they have no place in this discussion. I mean, you wouldn't ask a seismologist studying the plasticity of the components of the Mohorovicik Discontinuity how his work led to better understanding of 'love' and you wouldn't ask the botanist studying the orchid I mentioned how his work contributed to the concept of absolute justice and morality. Science does not bother with these things, that is the responsibility of philosophers and theologians to debate. It always will be. If natural scientists did try to involve such abstract concepts as 'love' and 'morality' in their work, it would destroy their impartiality. The idea is to understand the universe the way it is, not to try to force on it abstract, human values. My warning: Even your concept of 'purpose' is subjective, and if you try to force it on nature it will only create for you a distorted, tinted lens which prevents you from seeing nature on its own terms, the way it really is. It will immediately compromise your impartiality.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-22-2002]

This thread doesn't seem related to the Big Bang or cosmology. I'll move this to the Miscellaneous Topics in a day or two if there is no objection.--------------EvC Forum Administrator

​

[This message has been edited by Admin, 06-22-2002]{Moved topic per above on 10/29/02 - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-29-2002]

That is in theory only. Have people who live in Alaska grown hair all over their bodies to accomadate their conditions in arctic climates? While the orchid needs a compatible type of enviornment it clearly shows that it was created to suit the enviornment. With each organism needing to be met with it's own compatability of things in nature and all of the different types of conditions i.e. climate, food sources etc. how could evolution have profficiently and addequately provided all of these things ? It takes an incredible 9 mos. for a human being to completely develop, in two forms of enviornments suitable to it's needs at that time, change things and it's over. You say potato I say poato' And still the purpose is always there you cannot deny the facts. "Nature" isn't efficiant, God is a miraculous and marvelous Creator that painted on the canvas of the earth.
As far as the three legged toad , using the theory of natural selection I understand your answer to my example, however that too can be thought of as a good point, where are all of the remains and skeletons with all of the mutations and genetic defects that would be littering the earth? The fossils are more favorably conditioned for the flood theory such as Noah's Ark. Sedimentary layors and other facts clearly show that water did in fact flood the earth just as the Bible states. And while natural selection favored the change FROM water what you are saying is that we cannot evolve back to the water yet that is what so many claim the dolphins have done. Tuche' we don't have polka dotted elephants and while I agree in our classes of genius and species things are similar they are still not one inthe same, if everything evolved from the same original organism wouldn't EVERY organism have same traits? People and plants?.....Cats and phagocytes... So on that point the transitionals are similar and yet differnt I know the charts prehensil and pre-historic and all, I beleive adaptation does play a part but to fully evolve from atom to molecule (or sea sludge) to fish to primate to homoerectus and all the in betweeners quite a few of the "so called" transitionals have been shown to be nothing more than scientific error(such as finding a skull of an oregantun next to the incomplete remains of a human put them together and what do you have neaderthal) or a purposeful archaeologist seeking funding for the next dig. Their is documentation on this.
The whole theory of evolution thrives on the theory of chaos and ramndoness, that's how big bang works so my logic is still in tact and still poignant.
Yes animals are still animals and that's what seperates us from them, we have free will and we have all this other makeup that we can celebrate because of ours and natures creation.
We may not see the effects today of all the divine purpose but even looking at nature for the nature of it you can't miss God's fingerprints.
How can feelings and morality be seperate when if evolution were correct those things still would play large parts in life cycles, reproduction and in the continuation of humanity. And since we obviously are not one dimensional and we have a higher level of conscios why is it out of the realm of possibility that we are not the highest level of evolvement if evolution were true?

Jenna,Please could you reply point by point, much like gene did himself.
Its is very difficult to see what of Genes arguments you are arguing against.It's much easier on the eye, not to mention easier to follow. It can easily be done via the "reply quote" button at the bottom of each post. Simply pop the text you are responding to between the "quote start" & "quote finish" functions & make your reply underneath. Cut/paste & repeat as necessary.Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:
That is in theory only. Have people who live in Alaska grown hair all over their bodies to accomadate their conditions in arctic climates? While the orchid needs a compatible type of enviornment it clearly shows that it was created to suit the enviornment. With each organism needing to be met with it's own compatability of things in nature and all of the different types of conditions i.e. climate, food sources etc. how could evolution have profficiently and addequately provided all of these things ? It takes an incredible 9 mos. for a human being to completely develop, in two forms of enviornments suitable to it's needs at that time, change things and it's over. You say potato I say poato' And still the purpose is always there you cannot deny the facts. "Nature" isn't efficiant, God is a miraculous and marvelous Creator that painted on the canvas of the earth.

---

Theory only? ALL science is theory only. The Toe is exactly the same. Why do you accept a level of adaption? It seems to be at odds with,

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:
While the orchid needs a compatible type of enviornment it clearly shows that it was created to suit the enviornment.

---

If there's adaption, then where's the purpose?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

As far as the three legged toad , using the theory of natural selection I understand your answer to my example, however that too can be thought of as a good point, where are all of the remains and skeletons with all of the mutations and genetic defects that would be littering the earth?

---

Genetic defects resulting in gross malformity is rare in any population, & almost certainly would preclude the individuals chance of becoming adult. This, combined with the incomplete fossil record is why we don’t see what you expect.Evolution doesn’t work on gross anatomical changes, except in a negative way. Change is relatively slow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

The fossils are more favorably conditioned for the flood theory such as Noah's Ark. Sedimentary layors and other facts clearly show that water did in fact flood the earth just as the Bible states. And while natural selection favored the change FROM water what you are saying is that we cannot evolve back to the water yet that is what so many claim the dolphins have done.

---

Who on earth told you fossils are more favourably conditioned for the flood theory?How do you explain the existence of fossil forests in many layers of the geologic column, with their intact roots in fossilised soil? Soil horizons don’t form under flood conditions, & nor to mature forests grow in them.How does the flood explain morphological traits changing in successively higher strata? Like reptile to mammal transitions? Fish to amhibian transitions etc.Gene NEVER said we couldn’t evolve back to the water. Why is it you think because evolution says it’s possible, you think it should have happened? Cetaceans are evolved from terrestrial mammals, & their closest living ancestor is the Hippopotamus, based on molecular evidence. What gene is saying is that arboreal tree dwelling primates never had the sea as part of their environment anyway, so any mutation that occurred that gave the slightest potential adaption to a marine environment would have been selected against, not for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

Tuche' we don't have polka dotted elephants and while I agree in our classes of genius and species things are similar they are still not one inthe same, if everything evolved from the same original organism wouldn't EVERY organism have same traits?

---

The ToE predicts the evolution of new traits, whilst potentially maintaining ancestral ones. The greater the divergence the more new traits a lineage will evolve, & the fewer ancestral ones will be maintained. In fact phylogenetic analysis (deriving evolutionary trees from character traits) relies on this heritable mutability.As such we share traits with reptiles, & have ones that set us apart.Regarding traits that represents an ancestral character, try Krebs cycle, DNA, RNA etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

The whole theory of evolution thrives on the theory of chaos and ramndoness, that's how big bang works so my logic is still in tact and still poignant.

---

Please demonstrate how the ToE relies on the theory of chaos.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

Yes animals are still animals and that's what seperates us from them, we have free will and we have all this other makeup that we can celebrate because of ours and natures creation.

---

We are patently & demonstrably not separated from animals! We ARE animals.It’s natures creation, now, I thought it was the creators creation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

How can feelings and morality be seperate when if evolution were correct those things still would play large parts in life cycles, reproduction and in the continuation of humanity. And since we obviously are not one dimensional and we have a higher level of conscios why is it out of the realm of possibility that we are not the highest level of evolvement if evolution were true?

---

Take love for example, two forms sexual love & familial love. Obviously sexual love is a trait that would be selected for in social animals, lot’s of monogamous shagging, the pregnant female is then protected by the bonded (it feels like this, sometimes) male. Once the child is born, familial love takes care of the child, & is also a trait that would be selected for. Furthermore, our immediate friends/tribe also fall foul of this emotion, we generally protect our friends & immediate population. They benefit, & so do we when we are privy to the same protection, another selectively reinforced trait.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[QUOTE][b](such as finding a skull of an oregantun next to the incomplete remains of a human put them together and what do you have neaderthal)[/QUOTE][/b]There are quite a few (obvious) issues with placing an orangutan head on a neanderthal body...one being the size of the head in proportion to the body and another being the fact that neanderthals are bipeds and so the foramen magnum would be at the base of the skull, while orangutans (and other non-human primates) are not bipedal and so their fm's would be at the rear of the skull. And I don't have any background in anthropology, so to imply that PhDs and the plucky museum crowd (kids) wouldn't notice seems a bit rash. [QUOTE][b]or a purposeful archaeologist seeking funding for the next dig.[/QUOTE][/b]Archaeologists don't normally work with neanderthals, they try to understand historic and pre-historic (human) *cultures* (as opposed to anatomy, etc). The word you are looking for might be 'paleoanthropologist'.And if one got caught trying a hoax like this his career would be over immediately. Most hoax fossils are perpetuated by non-scientists who want to sell their 'find' for megabucks. Eventually the scientists find out (last one was a 'bird' from China, it took about a week to be officially declared a hoax, in the past it would sometimes take a couple of years without things like the Internet or airplanes or overnight shipping). Of course scientists are always outgunned when it comes to bidding for a fossil so most modern attempts at hoaxing comes out of financially disadvantaged corners of places like China and Morocco and are often aimed at non-scientist fossil collectors who are often easier to fool and have fatter wallets. There hasn't been an American scam I'm aware of since the early 20th century. The practical problem with hoaxes is that the media announces the 'marvelous find' before scientists can have a good look, and then when the fraud breaks the scientists look bad. Hence the very researchers who expose the fraud look like fools.Now would be a good time to ask if you have a solid understand of the peer-review system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:
Have people who live in Alaska grown hair all over their bodies to accomadate their conditions in arctic climates?

---

There is nothing in the ToE that requires all animals in a particular environment to adapt to that environment in the same way. Thick hair is one way to adapt to a cold environment. It isn't the only way. Humans adapt primarily through culture. Our brains allow us to very rapidly adapt to an enormous range of environments. Even so, humans in extreme environments for long enough -- many generations-- do still adapt physically. Artic indians for example can process staggering quantities of fat for the purpose of generating body heat. They also have an atypical, for humans, response to cold which helps prevent frostbite. Blood flows to the extremities, shuts off. Then cycles. Humans adapted to warmer climates don't cycle blood flow like that.

quote:

---

While the orchid needs a compatible type of enviornment it clearly shows that it was created to suit the enviornment. With each organism needing to be met with it's own compatability of things in nature and all of the different types of conditions i.e. climate, food sources etc. how could evolution have profficiently and addequately provided all of these things ?

---

Do you choose your clothing and then try to find a climate in which to wear it? Or is it the other way around?

quote:

---

"Nature" isn't efficiant, God is a miraculous and marvelous Creator that painted on the canvas of the earth.

---

How does nature's not being efficient relate to God being miraculous? I draw the opposite conclusion from that premise.

quote:

---

As far as the three legged toad , using the theory of natural selection I understand your answer to my example, however that too can be thought of as a good point, where are all of the remains and skeletons with all of the mutations and genetic defects that would be littering the earth?

---

You would not expect to see such things in the fossil records, and you don't. Fossilization is rare. To find one three-legged toad you'd have to have thousands of them live and die. But a three legged toad would not survive long enough to reproduce, so the mutation would never become frequent enough to stand a good chance of showing up as a fossil. What you find in the fossil record are the adaptations that worked for a significant length of time, not the ones that didn't.

quote:

---

The fossils are more favorably conditioned for the flood theory such as Noah's Ark. Sedimentary layors and other facts clearly show that water did in fact flood the earth just as the Bible states.

---

Wrong on all counts. The evidence supports no such thing.

quote:

---

And while natural selection favored the change FROM water what you are saying is that we cannot evolve back to the water yet that is what so many claim the dolphins have done.

---

We cannot evolve back the water? I didn't get that from the post. It isn't that we can't, its that we'd face an enormous amount of competition if we were forced back into the water. We might not make it, but that is not the same as can't make it.

quote:

---

Tuche' we don't have polka dotted elephants and while I agree in our classes of genius and species things are similar they are still not one inthe same, if everything evolved from the same original organism wouldn't EVERY organism have same traits? People and plants?.....Cats and phagocytes...

---

We do share a great deal on the cellular level. That's why pesticides and herbacides kill us as well as them. And why disinfectants have warning labels.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

So what John said about Native Americans that live in the Arctic having adapted to their environment effectively demonstrates evolution, do you not agree?

I agree that adapting is a viable thing, still here is my quandry that cannot be explained by evolution. What or who provided the ingredients for the Big Bang to have occurred?
You can have a recipe, but unless you have the ingredients you can't cook anything.
Let's just say for arguments sake that evolution(not the Big Bang ) is true.
In the Bible God says he made Creation in six days and rested on the seventh.
Also in the Bible it says that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years. Which isn't that along the lines of space time continuom?
So let's work with that logic and say it was really 6,000 years that the Creation process took place.
And let's say that following theories of evolution that is how it all came to be .
Any way you draw it you still have to have a Creator to put the process in motion.
Even if it all was a chemical reaction, even if it all was a spark of matter.... You still have to start with something.
Where does the something come from?
I understand why "rationale" people look at the findings in the scientific community and point "evolution" fingers.
However, the process of creation can be recreated in a lab.
Everytime you plant something and it grows, everytime a baby is born that is creation in it's truest form.
Adapting is not going as far as evolution.
It is simply changing enough to meet a need, however it is not changing or rather Morphing into another form all together.
What an empty world it would be to be born just because you happened to evolve from nothing a million years ago. And not only did it all start with nothing then it all ends with nothing....
No purpose no miracles, no realness just NOTHING...

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:
I agree that adapting is a viable thing, still here is my quandry that cannot be explained by evolution. What or who provided the ingredients for the Big Bang to have occurred?
You can have a recipe, but unless you have the ingredients you can't cook anything.

---

How does your percieve problems with the BB have anything to do with evolution?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

Let's just say for arguments sake that evolution(not the Big Bang ) is true.

---

Okay.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

In the Bible God says he made Creation in six days and rested on the seventh.
Also in the Bible it says that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years. Which isn't that along the lines of space time continuom?

---

The lord must be a really boring fella if a day seems like a thousand years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

So let's work with that logic and say it was really 6,000 years that the Creation process took place.
And let's say that following theories of evolution that is how it all came to be.

---

I didn't know that you were a mega-evolutionist. If evolution progressed fast enough to account for modern day creatures from the first life in 6000 years then we should be seeing completely new creatures evolving every few years. Have you seen any?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

Any way you draw it you still have to have a Creator to put the process in motion.

---

This does not follow from what you have said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

Even if it all was a chemical reaction, even if it all was a spark of matter.... You still have to start with something.
Where does the something come from?

---

You are assuming it had to 'come from' somewhere, who says it couldn't always have existed, just like you think your god did or will you reject religion because you don't know where he came from?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

I understand why "rationale" people look at the findings in the scientific community and point "evolution" fingers.
However, the process of creation can be recreated in a lab.
Everytime you plant something and it grows, everytime a baby is born that is creation in it's truest form.

---

Ohh. So you don't really create from nothing then, so your god runs into the same problems that you see with the BB. Where did the matter and energy come from that he supposedly used to create the universe?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

Adapting is not going as far as evolution.

---

Adaption IS evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

It is simply changing enough to meet a need, however it is not changing or rather Morphing into another form all together.

---

Evolution does not require this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:

What an empty world it would be to be born just because you happened to evolve from nothing a million years ago. And not only did it all start with nothing then it all ends with nothing....
No purpose no miracles, no realness just NOTHING...

---

Personal objections asside, do you have any evidence against evolution?------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:
I agree that adapting is a viable thing, still here is my quandry that cannot be explained by evolution. What or who provided the ingredients for the Big Bang to have occurred?

---

What ingredients, Jenna?Space and time began at the big bang. Asking what came before simply doesn't make sense? What came before time? What came before everything? What came before the very first thing ever ever ever? The idea of cause and effect makes no sense when there is no space and no time. What stuff made the stuff that stuff is made of? The question is self-negating. The known laws of physics crack in the extreme conditions of the big bang. Applying those laws despite that fact is not reasonable.

quote:

---

Also in the Bible it says that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years. Which isn't that along the lines of space time continuom?

---

Well, no. The space-time continuum is a term refering to the three dimensions of space and one of time. Massive objects can warp the continuum, hence gravity. But I don't see the connection to the thousand year days.

quote:

---

So let's work with that logic and say it was really 6,000 years that the Creation process took place.
And let's say that following theories of evolution that is how it all came to be.

---

You postulate an enormously fast rate of evolution-- far faster than any evidence supports.

quote:

---

Any way you draw it you still have to have a Creator to put the process in motion.

---

Why? Why must a creator set anything in motion? There are other possibilities. Why must this one be the one?

quote:

---

However, the process of creation can be recreated in a lab.
Everytime you plant something and it grows, everytime a baby is born that is creation in it's truest form.

---

You can't be equating creation ex nihilo with planting a seed or fertilizing an egg.

quote:

---

It is simply changing enough to meet a need

---

Right, now add up those 'changes to meet a need' over five hundred million years. Surprise!!!!! Whole new forms.

quote:

---

What an empty world it would be to be born just because you happened to evolve from nothing a million years ago. And not only did it all start with nothing then it all ends with nothing....
No purpose no miracles, no realness just NOTHING...

---

I like nothing.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE][b]What or who provided the ingredients for the Big Bang to have occurred?[/QUOTE][/b]It could have been seeded by God or it could have been a prior-existing particle that had no beginning. The question is about as useful as asking you where God came from. The question has no solution, it turns into an infinite regression. [QUOTE][b]a day with the Lord is like a thousand years. Which isn't that along the lines of space time continuom?[/QUOTE][/b]I'm confused. I think you're trying to appeal to relativity but I don't have enough information. [QUOTE][b]However, the process of creation can be recreated in a lab. [/QUOTE][/b]You can speak animals and entire planets into existance? Wow, I'd better not offend you any further! [QUOTE][b]Everytime you plant something and it grows, everytime a baby is born that is creation in it's truest form.[/QUOTE][/b]Actually a plant from a seed, and a human from a single cell, both sound a lot more like evolution to me. [QUOTE][b]Adapting is not going as far as evolution.[/QUOTE][/b]Adapting, is the end result of evolution. [QUOTE][b]It is simply changing enough to meet a need, however it is not changing or rather Morphing into another form all together.[/QUOTE][/b]"Morphing" from one "form" to another (not exactly scientific terminology there) is the result of compounding adaptations, themselves the result of evolution. [QUOTE][b]What an empty world it would be to be born just because you happened to evolve from nothing a million years ago.[/QUOTE][/b]Science is here to understand nature, not to give a meaning in life. To expect evolution to make the world "not empty" and give your life meaning is wrong--that isn't what we have science for. Scientists try to understand nature on its own terms, not by trying to make nature look warm and cozy to vindicate a pre-existing outlook of life. You're just going to have to find your own meaning, not try to force the Universe itself to bend to your will or make it look like something it isn't. [i][b]It is the way it is.[/i][/b]Fortunately religion and philosophy have been working for centuries to give life meaning, so science can go on to other things.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-28-2002]

The "living environment" however may?? be reducible to a better chemsity and afew book nook commas for some comment i intend to not be as mudane on this level of a Liven GOD.Wolfram has inauguraed in P. Debye's word of 1917 " a new fiasco of statistical mechanics" but the nature of cranks has been to ascribe &any& discrepency to failure to appreciate the minutiae of created differences in from Biblical Creationism etc completely failing to re-write Devye semi-colon only pretending to forgive the man by asserting unawares that the author "is rather silent on how to do this" ("This points our a serious difficulty in using the "new kind of science", because it is easy to show that for any given snowflake pattern there are usually an impossibly large number of very different rules that all lead to the same pattern." or "But wihin the world of complex systems it is difficult to seperate reactions to the man from those of his ideas" (for instance if a wolfram network shows that temperature can depend on/with electric momment (maybe only in bio-tissue??)So what was writ off as a quasi-quibble to pending patent law issues with dielectric devices that operate by some of Wolfram's rules (even if he is correct as to Natural Selection) the insults show that computation has brought the reading of science &back& to the first answer but we can not attain the former till all of these latter day by to day academic issues of the not anything Bill Clinton said, "fruits of this solitary "(where geographic location pin points etc_)" labour" where such review as "and the best way to understand these processes is by modelling them on a computer, not by working out the implications" DOES NOT complete the systematic constitution of KANT (per sentence etc not empirical sentence standard nonetheless) Wolfram may have presented for not working out the wole history of influence of his use of the word "cell" on what his notion can come from no matter the psychology of accounting for the data.Debye already took the 2nd path but all that assumes electrons (THE THRID DIMENSION OF CHEMISTRY CHAP VI FINITE AND INFINITE MOLECULES "We now wish to consider the structure of compounds formed by the non-metalic elements elements of the firs set when they combine one with another. In these compounds we are concerned with bonds formed by the SHARING of electrons, not by the transference of electrons to form ions.) are the interiror of the molecule in either the creation or eveolution model THAT MAKE UP THE BODY of whatever embodies the computation but Wolfram's teaching "simple program" can yield (at point of universality and affordances in line with this if invented) universal electrons OUTSIDE the network that would be so changed (I suggested two chages to chemsitry above) becasue with FARADAY or not of these non-nested beyond repeateble architechtures that no longer suprises (evolutionst) still suprises (creationist telling evolutionst) because the constitution could still change on inifinte division (without creations science but spurred on by same) AFTER GOD"S thought.WOlfram's use of avoiding contradiction is perferable to Debye's semi colon for any extra wandering ion but if a @nd calculation has been conducted by WOlram I donot t know so I can not say even with my misgivings about irreducibility if "principle of computational equivalence " will survive biological need of other than calculus for the applied math use etc. Regardless I can see what kind of science this is so it been got through that this is not a "mundane" continutation of science's failure to capitalize on tools of Thom's and Mandelbrot's before the flat land becomes the Earth.

Originally posted by gene90: And if one got caught trying a hoax like this his career would be over immediately. Most hoax fossils are perpetuated by non-scientists who want to sell their 'find' for megabucks. Eventually the scientists find out (last one was a 'bird' from China, it took about a week to be officially declared a hoax, in the past it would sometimes take a couple of years without things like the Internet or airplanes or overnight shipping).I remember that. Actually the fossil was real. The tail was added to make it more "attractive" to a buyer. The thing was that the fossil, without the added tail, was quite interesting in and of itself, but the scandel had detracted from it in the end.