General Music Chat

Mike N

I like your picture. I suppose that thing was a trout yesterday?

Evolution suggests that because we need something, such as an eyeball, we get it. However, human survival would have been impossible without us having all our bits and pieces right from the start. (Besides our kids take too long to mature) Could you live without say, your sight, smell, legs, arms etc?

Besides - would nature use cute as a defense mechanism? Look at kittens and puppies and answer honestly.

I've tried to believe in evolution, but I just don't have enough faith...

Talbot

.

Paperdog, you are referring to Punctuated Equilibrium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Correct. The astoutness in Mayr's observations is that his " morphological discontinuity (or "sudden jumps")" invalidates the scientific notions that evolution is 'predictible'. That's important, because it challenges the very essence of Design theory, which maintains the precept of planned species.
However, Mayr's theory might have a flaw...It holds that Speciation can branch off (just like other theories hold).

Are you familiar with the Mandlebrot pattern? His fractal geometry suggests that those patterns are repeatable (Under a very broad set of limits)
The point being that it takes us back to credible arguments for design theory.

Here's a final food for thought. Re Evolution: In the bible, it claims the earth was created in 6 days. According to Big Bang theories, in the beginning of time, the universe was packed so densely (post explosion, spreading ourward) that a 24 day by our current standards, could have equated to quite a few billion years...and each successive day, a few billion less and so on...as the universe continued to expand. If so that would give tthe earth (and its life), a huge margin of time to evolve. That could equate to 6 days in biblical terms. Well never really know if such a correaltion exists, but its plausible.

the atheists love these kinds of discussions, comparing apples and oranges.

evolution, realistically is not a theory, it is really just an educated guess.
and it dose maintain it self in contrast to the laws of physics.

it is stagnant and cannot move forward. because it dose not predict a phenomenon that will prove the theorem.

the garden fable in the bible is an introduction to the the relationship between God and man.

although the bible dose touch on the creation of creation.
evolution cannot make this claim, it is a rather clumsy poking about in the day to day operation of the machine.

I am not really sure why religions people fall for this comparison.

the atheists love these kinds of discussions, comparing apples and oranges.

evolution, realistically is not a theory, it is really just an educated guess.
and it dose maintain it self in contrast to the laws of physics.

it is stagnant and cannot move forward. because it dose not predict a phenomenon that will prove the theorem.

the garden fable in the bible is an introduction to the the relationship between God and man.

although the bible dose touch on the creation of creation.
evolution cannot make this claim, it is a rather clumsy poking about in the day to day operation of the machine.

I am not really sure why religions people fall for this comparison.

And so it was written ... http://youtu.be/MfENlxCXbro

you don't have any real thoughts of your own do you?

you don't have any real thoughts of your own do you?

You were grumbling about comparing apples and oranges .. so I presented an another "orange", another creation myth to compare. I had not realized that you claim the chapters of Genesis as you own original thoughts.

well god forbid, you should be able to formulate it into your own words.
besides,
my comparison still applies whether you use a Sumerian creation story or any other semitic story.
or hadn't you thought of that?

ok, for starters, I am NOT an atheist, and NOT an agnostic, but believe in some sort of Spirit that created the Universe(and perhaps multiple universes?) but please explain the talking snake in the Garden of Eden?

All eternal things require cloaks to represent them in the physical world.
because you cannot show an eternal.
you can only point to it's effect on the natural world.

what sort of explanation were you looking for?


I suppose I should add (for the uninitiated) that these effects are only registered on the soul,
it's quite stupid looking for sunburned fish on the bottom of the ocean.

All eternal things ...

Gee wiz JCP61, in your own words of course, umm ... how many eternal things are there?

All eternal things ...

Gee wiz JCP61, in your own words of course, umm ... how many eternal things are there?

how many gestures are there in a relationship?

All eternal things ...

Gee wiz JCP61, in your own words of course, umm ... how many eternal things are there?

how many gestures are there in a relationship?

How many eternities are in a gesture?

I realize how difficult it must be to not reply with a youtube video.

All eternal things require cloaks to represent them in the physical world.
because you cannot show an eternal.
you can only point to it's effect on the natural world.

what sort of explanation were you looking for?


I suppose I should add (for the uninitiated) that these effects are only registered on the soul,
it's quite stupid looking for sunburned fish on the bottom of the ocean.

and by "uninitiated" do you mean God has some sort of Secret Society to keep undesirables like me out if that uninitiated comment was aimed at me?

ok, for starters, I am NOT an atheist, and NOT an agnostic, but believe in some sort of Spirit that created the Universe(and perhaps multiple universes?) but please explain the talking snake in the Garden of Eden?

That would likely make you a deist, wouldn't it?