Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
This is a false theory, that chemicals can create life. It is nonsense.
Life is never created, life is already there.
God is already there, and the part and particles, molecules, life, was already there.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Werner, you don't think live evolved?
If not, how would you explain the piles of evidence suggesting it has?
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
dirtbag, the religious are not interested in evidence.
Presto "God is already there, and the part and particles, molecules, life, was already there."
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Waiting for someone to post an anatomical drawing of an eyeball.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I know BC. It's hard not to say something though.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
HDDJ, don't you mean Human Ear?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You have got so many chemicals.
Now the child is dead. Now you give some chemical injection and bring it into life. Why you cannot do that?
If you cannot do that, then what is this nonsense, saying that some chemical is missing?
If it is missing, you replace it. Why you cannot replace?
Because they haven't found out the chemical?
Therefore they are rascals. They do not know what is that chemical, and still you say that some chemical is missing. This is going on, bluffing, cheating. This should be stopped. They do not know what is that chemical missing, still, they say, "Some chemical missing".
They have no knowledge. As soon as they/you cannot explain, you prove your foolishness, that's all. That is not a scientific answer, "chance," "nature."
What is nature? Who is conducting nature? How is nature going on so nicely?
The "soul" is defined as a non-material, eternal spiritual entity present within any living being. The symptom of the presence of the soul within a body is consciousness. The soul continues to exist after the destruction of the body and it existed prior to the creation of the body. The material body develops, changes and produces by-products [offspring] because of the presence of the soul within. The material body deteriorates in due cause of time and when it is no longer a suitable residence for the soul it is forced to leave the body. This we call death.
The soul transmigrates from body to body according to the consciousness it has developed in it's lifetime.
That is the real evolution.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
We've had plenty of threads on evolution already.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
...and nothing changes. Ironic, huh?
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
How is nature going on so nicely?
I think it's all the yoga. And the tantric philosophy. Thanks for observing ;-)
Lynne: Actually I feel like I said a lot with that post. You could make many posts on superdopo about how his observations have been taken out of context (oh wait, we've done just that). And typically in that discussion someone decides to include intelligent design as a science to really stir the pot. Douglas Brooks had a wonderful rant about the political reasoning for doing such. I doubt anyone on this forum has ever listened to Douglas though...
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
I believe in intelligent design.
It is how I establish new routes.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
You made up #1, but I'm with you on #2, though you left out some key details; among others, time is reaaaaallllllyyy long.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 4, 2008 - 02:26am PT
|
The "theory" of relativity hasn't been disproven. Yet.
The "theory" of gravity hasn't been disproven. Yet.
The electromagnetic "theory" hasn't been disproven. Yet.
Newton's three laws ("theories") work fine for a non-relativistic and non-quantum effect universe. They were in part replaced by special and general relativity, and then quantum mechanics and other exotic stuff that Ed can tell us about, but only to provide a more precise explanation of certain observations.
We depend on these "theories" each and every day. Anyone working in health care or biomedical fields depends on the application of the "theory" of evolution every day.
Anyway, wasn't it clever of Mr. Darwin to come up with such an interesting explanation of how some of the world works, and give us something to talk about? Whether or not he was divinely inspired, intelligently designed, or just plain evolved?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 4, 2008 - 02:35am PT
|
I must admit it's hard to imagine 4.56 billion years. It's an awful long time.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
It's probably way more than enough time for an Amoeba to evolve into a gay human, but I'll grant you it's certainly not enough time for you to evolve enough to tolerate gay marriage...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Those goddamn 'theories' - they're like the f*#king energizer bunnie...
[url="http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/07/03/in.unique.stellar.laboratory.einsteins.theory.passes.strict.new.test" target="new"]In unique stellar laboratory, Einstein's theory passes strict, new test
[/url]
Thursday, July 3, 2008 - 14:22 in Astronomy & Space
Einstein's 1915 theory predicted that in a close system of two very massive objects, such as neutron stars, one object's gravitational tug, along with an effect of its spinning around its axis, should cause the spin axis of the other to wobble, or precess.
Studies of other pulsars in binary systems had indicated that such wobbling occurred, but could not produce precise measurements of the amount of wobbling.
"Measuring the amount of wobbling is what tests the details of Einstein's theory and gives a benchmark that any alternative gravitational theories must meet," said Scott Ransom of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.
The eclipses allowed the astronomers to pin down the geometry of the double-pulsar system and track changes in the orientation of the spin axis of one of them. As one pulsar's spin axis slowly moved, the pattern of signal blockages as the other passed behind it also changed. The signal from the pulsar in back is absorbed by the ionized gas in the other's magnetosphere.
Pulsars, first discovered in 1967, are the "corpses" of massive stars that have exploded as supernovae. What is left after the explosion is a superdense neutron star that packs more than the mass of our Sun into the size of an average city. Beams of radio waves stream outward from the poles of the star's intense magnetic field and sweep around as the star rotates, as often as hundreds of times a second.
The pair of pulsars studied with the GBT is about 1,700 light-years from Earth. The average distance between the two is only about twice the distance from the Earth to the Moon. The two orbit each other in just under two and a half hours.
"A system like this, with two very massive objects very close to each other, is precisely the kind of extreme "cosmic laboratory" needed to test Einstein's prediction," said Victoria Kaspi, leader of McGill University's Pulsar Group. Theories of gravity don't differ significantly in "ordinary" regions of space such as our own Solar System. In regions of extremely strong gravity fields, such as near a pair of close, massive objects, however, differences are expected to show up.
In the binary-pulsar study, General Relativity "passed the test" provided by such an extreme environment, the scientists said.
"It's not quite right to say that we have now 'proven' General Relativity," Breton said. "However, so far, Einstein's theory has passed all the tests that have been conducted, including ours."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
So we can just throw out anything and instead of "proving" our theory if noone "disproves" it...it has credibility?
that's the way it works... you can disprove something, you can't prove it.... so if your theory is consistent with observation, and the theory can be explained logically, you're in!
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"if your theory is consistent with observation, and the theory can be explained logically, you're in!"
Really?
Okay, so where are these observations of evolution happening?
The theory says that new organs and apparatuses can develop spontaneously through selection of random mutations.
So where's the observation of that happening?
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
Jody, Takes more faith to believe everything evolved from nothing than it does to believe God created
everything.
The diversity of life did not evolve from nothing. Life arose from the materials available in this universe, on and around this planet. Evolution began once self replicating organisms arrived. If you want to conjure up a "first cause", what caused god? What came before god? Please tell us where god came from? Extreme assertions require extreme evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it. The various fantastic theories in
science (and they are fantastic!) require and have large amounts of evidence, where is yours? (crickets chirping while we wait, and wait...)
Blight, Okay, so where are these observations of evolution happening?
If you are interested, I suggest you read through this list of top creationist claims against evolution. Your question is on the list. Most of the observations are occuring on what some people call the microevolutionary level (that is small observable changes seen mostly in insect and bacterial populations). [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html[/url]
Also, Blight, Jody and anyone else interested may want to read through the 29+ Evidences for Evolution provided free on the [url]http://www.talkorigins.org[/url] website. This should give you a good idea where scientists are coming from regarding evolution.[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/[/url]
Have a happy 4th!
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
"Takes more faith to believe everything evolved from nothing than it does to believe God created everything."
No, Jody, just takes curiosity and an open mind. My take is that the universe is open, not closed...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!