Evolution The Great Lie

Indeed!

By means of a thought experiment, not proof, try rolling a pair of dice, by hand. Now, study the mechanics of rotation, gravity, and surface friction sufficiently to [i]predict[/i] the [i]ending position[/i] of the dice, given mathematically precise knowledge of
(1) their starting position
(2) the surface(s) onto which they are to be thrown, including location(s) and material(s) of those surfaces relative to the starting position(s)
(3) the velocity and angular momentum of the dices' initial trajectory, ie "where and how they are thrown".

If you are willing to study all those things, just to predict the behavior of a pair of dice, you are in desperate need of a hobby!

However, this thought exercise does demonstrate that it is [i]possible[/i], though horribly tedious, to make such a prediction. Instead of wasting all this verbiage, however, scientists substitute the word "random", not to mean that the deterministic cause is non-existent, but only that the specifics of the deterministic causes are uninteresting, or in the case of evolution, not pertinent to the Theory.

Concede, Sven.

That's your ill-informed opinion, not fact.

PS - It's "by [i]and[/i] large," not "by [i]in[/i] large." Just thought you'd like to know. Perhaps you meant simply "in large."

any entity whose time is so worthless that it would deign to [i]calculate[/i] the trajectories of dice. My mind is capable of better, and any "entity" which would concern itself with such calculations for eternity is beneath me.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=210121&messageID=2170538

?

For your sake, I hope so, as you seem to have not found the right one yet.

Each individual particle exerts forces, and responds to forces which are the sum of the forces of all the other particles under examination. In real terms, that could include the entire cosmos and every single particle. In practical analysis, we must limit the scope of analysis so as to be useful. That limitation is usually set by physicists at the "nearest neighbor" of any single particle. Thus, we acknowledge that all motions of every particle are in fact deterministic, but when examining macrscopic quantities, we are forced to make approximations, including, in some cases, that the deterministic factors are so [edit: replace "unpredictable"] onerous to analyze that they are as good as "random".

[i]The hottest temperatures disintegrate matter. The greatest forces collapse a atom into oblivion.[/i]

The greatest forces yet observed can exchange a quantum of matter for a quantum of energy, never create nor remove either.

[i]What else is there? If we look at the limits of those operations, ie the coldest and the hottest and the application of extreme forces what heppens?[/i]

The gravity of certain stars led to the formation of carbon. The deposits from those stars now form you, me, and all the plant & animal life on this planet. Extremes were necessary to form that element. More moderate conditions, here on Earth, permitted those same particles to be arranged into living things.

[i]Then I say "sfumato". Newtonian science is out the window. I turn to the quantum realm an look at the quantum processes. I look at the quantum brain, quantum computing, and other aspects of this realm. Once again I come up short on answers, not even a glint of a direction.[/i]

For what are you looking? The first criterion of a good scientist is to ask the right questions. When reality does not provide the answers you expect, check your premises. Reality will not change to suit your assumptions.

[i]Neil, we need to establish the universe as either ordered or random. I choose ordered.

The formal mathematical definition of randomness is that it [b]does not have a pattern and cannot be ordered.[/b]

Every scientist, mathematician, and computational engineer (that I know of) will tell you that this universe is under Chaos Theory and is a perfectly ordered and an indeterminant (sic: should be "indeterminate") system. Indeterminance (sic: should be "indeterminacy") is not random. Indeterminance is [b]ordered and[/b] a [b]probabalistic[/b] outcome. These are unsually the outcome of simultaneous equations of polynomials to the nth order. [b]One could work up differential equations and locate the boundaries within which outcomes would occur. Thus, limiting possible outcomes to a small group of possibilities.[/i][/b]

The parts I [b]emphasized[/b] are points of at least partial agreement. If you will comment on "Point of Commonality 1" below, perhaps we can proceed constructively.

(1) Indeterminacy does not mean non-deterministic, it means only probabilistic, meaning that causality is presumed, even when its mechanisms must be modeled with "black box" hypotheses, as in QM. Such is my understanding of the distinction you are attempting to make between "randomness" and "indeterminacy". If so, I am in complete agreement. If not, please clarify how your premises differ from what I have outlined here.

Where do house cats come from, if not the wild?

[i]Great Questions
(Great according to whom? Why?)
Who am I?
How did I get here?
What am I here for?
Where am I going?
All these are answered by what you believe about how we got here, what you believe about creation[/i]

Your attempt to conflate the existential and the metaphysical is transparent and false, you stupid little [b]snake in the grass![/b]

Who am I?
Me.

How did I get here?
Irrelevant. What matters is that I am here. The questions that interest me, [b]metaphysically[/b], are not about what preceded me, but about my present and future. How dare you presume to dictate to me what questions I find interesting!

What am I here for?
My own happiness.

Where am I going?
None of your business.

"All these are answered by what you believe about how we got here, what you believe about creation."

For you, perhaps, but not for me. I believe your questions to be meaningless, and your answers moot. Most importantly, it is not your place to project your assumptions onto those of us who do not share the premises of yours which are the basis of the questions you pose, and your unsubstantiated assertions as to the philosophical relevance of [b]everybody's[/b] answers to those questions. [b]Many of us[/b] find those questions fundamentally uninteresting. All of us, regardless of our number, have the right to ignore them according to our personal preferences.

You have the right to concern yourself with the questions that are of interest [b]to you[/b], and I have the equal right to concern myself with the questions that are of interest [b]to me[/b].

I haven't barged into your church preaching Evolution, Big Bangs and Atheism. Get the hell out of My schools, My home, and in every other sphere of My activity, get the hell out of My Way!

[i]If there is a creator, why should it desire worship? Don't tell me what the church wants or what you want, why does god need your adulation?[/i]

Deists, not deities, yearn for worship. Why?

[i]The natural universes base state is digital in nature indicating that the natural universe may be an irrevesible computational algoryhthm.[/i]

Because I, for one, am not convinced by your extremely brief outline of such unusual interpretations of these abstractions.

With luck, neilb will confirm, refute, and/or elaborate, but if I understand the role of QM in chemistry at all, the absence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would allow such regularity in biological systems that known causes of mutation would be precluded.

"In my case, the view was a discovery that has drawn me in and transformed my thoughts."

Who are you to say that sufficient time has not already elapsed for evolution to have brought us to the present point?

Though, what thrill that might be remains to be determined.

are lies.

"God might exist" is not a lie.

"God does exist" is a lie.

"Let me rephrase that to the skeletal and biological frames not the minds because I see Cavemen thinking all the time. Obvious minds have not evolved."

You're brilliant and everybody else doesn't get it.

I wonder, if MrIdentityCrisis took that moist, steamy pile to the Discovery Institute, whether they would even give it a listen, or just toss him out on his head?

This entire claim of Evolution's reliance on [i]his[/i] misunderstanding, or strategically incorrect semantic misstatement, of the meaning of the word "random" as it relates to Darwinism, is nothing better than a straw man argument. If he only had a brain!

Striking random out of the basic premises negates its original claims and changes the notion of evolution. You are now remarking that evolutionary processes are ordered and discussing CHaos theory concepts. I ask you to demonstrate that order to me in a scientific manner. What are the mathematics? If ordered, we should be able to approximate human form in the future as we known humans will evolve within certain boundaries. It is a boundary value problem.

Randomness, once again, cannot be ordered, it has no pattern, and cannot be predicted.

"False: Nobody is imposing anything on you." You could not be more wrong! At one time they taught more in line with ID then Evolution was introduced to offer a counter view. Once the atheist got a hold of evolution philosophy they forced ID philosophies out. Now students only get one view. Not much of an education.

The atheist are pushing their agenda and philosophy and do not think for one moment atheist do not worship something. They all fight for nothing awefully hard.

Can I PLEASE have another week????

Neil, don't bother. You're too bright and he's too invested in being "right" by his own definitions.

People like this give Christians like me a bad name.

I read his posts and wonder what in his faith is so skewed that he honestly believes that this is the way to lead all you "heathens" to Christ. Especially as I managed to learn long ago that it is what we have in common that is so much more interesting than what we do not.

I hope that if Mr. Harris doesn't manage to persuade sensible, honest, basically moral but religious people like you from the premise that belief without evidence is a valid belief worthy of being taken seriously, that he will at least convince you to join scientists, agnostics and atheists in setting the likes of MrIdentityCrisis straight as to the difference between fact & fiction, and the concept that the Rights of Man supersede his [i]particular[/i] interpretation of one book, called 'the Bible'. I do not believe that myths are worthy of being taken seriously on any level. I do believe that the premise that "religious beliefs" are sacrosanct in so many spheres of social activity is the very premise that allows and [i]produces[/i] groups such as Al Qaida and the Discovery Institute. Sam Harris explains this in much greater depth and more eloquently than I have the time or patience to do. Please pick up a copy. If my impression of you is close, you will at least find it interesting & pleasantly thought-provoking.

I would prefer to see you replying to SvenSolomnsky directly, not apologizing to neilb or others on his behalf, for whatever reason you are doing so. It looks to me like your motivation in this post to neilb is something like "saving face" with anybody outside your church whom you believe might judge you according to Sven. That is unnecessary. You see, I am not prone to such an error, and neither are other rational people. More generally, people worth any esteem at all don't require such disclaimers. We can tell very easily the difference between somebody with a live-and-let-live attitude (such as yourself) and somebody with a contrary agenda (such as Lon Mabon, Osama bin Laden, and MrMiami here). I would appreciate it if instead of stating your beliefs in the rights of others to not practice your faith, you would [b]demonstrate[/b] those beliefs by keeping other members of your flock in check.

Thanks in advance.

I hate these kinds of arguments and wish there was a way to turn these guys off. Because what they accomplish is to insure that no meeting ground is EVER established and that anyone professing faith should be suspect. And I have never done anything to deserve being tarred with that brush.

Near as I can tell, the people who choose to worship for any reason beyond their own (unadmitted) fear, is selfishness. I'm selfish, I worship for me- not God. I get something out of the act, have no clue if God does. Nor do I spend a moment on the thought.

What I think this nutter is about is to try to sway people to his view- it is always so much safer to function in a group. If that initial guess is wrong, I would think that he is just out to stir the pot- which seems to be a rational guess based on the frequency of his name changes and position changes.

My two cents as a Christian? NO religious teaching of any kind should be done in the school. That should be a private matter, best taught in the home. If you are too offended by the school's curricula to subject your child to it, consider home schooling. I have no problem with teaching sciences and biology. I have a problem with a teacher trying to teach ID.

If that teacher is Christian, they will likely be emphatic in this teaching and could, by preventing openness, cause the child to become tunnel visioned. If that teacher is not Christian, they will likely present the subject matter from a standpoint of disbelief, potentially causing the same outcome.

There are things that we KNOW as well as things that can be postulated. Children need the security of what is known before they are subjected to the insecurity of postulation.

Late homework is as good as no homework.

:p

I'm not a party to this bet, but I can still spout off about it, right?

"There are things that we KNOW as well as things that can be postulated. Children need the security of what is known before they are subjected to the insecurity of postulation."

Will you go explain that to Sven please? I think religious moderates should do more about their extremists than disclaim them; you should actively oppose their efforts to impose religion through the state.

Where [b]exactly[/b] did you get that definition of "randomness"? On what basis do you attribute it to "Neo-Darwinism"? What evidence can you produce that "Neo-Darwinism relies upon" that definition of "randomness"?

Other counterarguments have implicitly permitted you these assertions by arguing against them at face value. But now I'm here, and I don't take your words at face value. Where have you seen a Neo-Darwinist [b]rely upon[/b] that definition of randomness?

You sound amazingly familiar to me. Were you one of the pack outside of the hospital where I took chemo, berating me about killing the cancer in my body and denying it the "right to life"? Were you one of those shouting at very sick people that they did not have the same right to life as the parasite that wanted to kill them? You sure sound like it to me, buddy.

You want to believe in a universe of perfect order? You do that. Good luck with all that. But there are those of us out here that will cheerfully tell you that you've mistakenly shoved your head up your arse.

The universe is not comprised of 1s and 0s. It is changing and changeable. It is different every day. Every minute of every day. Prove me wrong on that score.

That which was unthinkable 20 years ago is a part of daily life now. The insurmountable has been "surmounted" so many times that it no longer gets a passing mention. Last I checked, that would be evidence of evolution.

You, sir, have completely negated any credibility you might have had. But you accomplished that all by yourself. Your constant name changing in an effort to find credibility has been seen through and become a joke to all intents and purposes. Near as I can see, your sole purpose here is to upset as many people as you possibly can in the name of your belief system. To me, that suggests that you are pretty pathetic.

I'll bet it was you I saw, screaming epithets at women trying to make it home after a session on the chemo floor. Want to help me understand how cancer fits into your "ordered universe" and what beauty it has?

I'm not your straw man. You have not made your case even once.

"You choose to define random outside the scientific community."

Show me the definition which you claim to be that of "the scientific community" then. Or, do you expect me to also accept your assertion of my need to brush up "on Chaos Theory and mathematics" without proof, as you expect your pipe-dream definition of "random" to be accepted uncontested?

The first point of dispute is your claim:

[i]1. The [b]natural occurrence of randomness, which Neo-Darwinism relies upon[/b], does not exist in this natural universe. Scientists and mathematicians unilaterally agree that the universe is a perfectly ordered - indeterminant (sic) system which precludes any notion of randomness. Natural randomness cannot be mathematically modelled as the universe is perfectly ordered and randomness is counter to perfect order. So the root premise of Darwinism that biological life is the outcome of chance, random events cannot possibly exist. The Theory fails on its most basic premise.[/i]

With the assertions made in the [b]emphasized[/b] portion above, you have undertaken the burden of proving that the Theory of Evolution [b]relies[/b] on a definition of randomness that is [b]impossible[/b].

I have demonstrated:

(1) that evolution need not rely on any particular assertion regarding the "randomness" of mutations, nor of their cause (The basis of the theory is, in fact, only that "mutations occur" occasionally and that some of those mutations [i]might[/i] result in beneficial adaptations.)

(2) that the non-deterministic, totally unordered misunderstanding of "randomness" was [i]never[/i] part of science

In fact, the appearance of the word "random" in science should imply nothing other than "pattern and/or cause indeterminate" to any [i]intelligent[/i] reader. No scientist has ever asserted absence of causality, nor of the possibility of underlying order in the manner you wish to pretend. You lose.

to evolution.

You claim:

[i]Evolution THEORY states that

1. RANDOM copying errors in genetic material (mutations), migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes during sexual reproduction (genetic recombination) create variation in organisms.[/i]

I claim that the theory only requires that mutations occur, and that their causes [b]are not crucial[/b] to the Theory. For all it matters to the Theory, the mutations [i]may as well be random[/i]. This is the [b]opposite[/b] of relying on a particular source of the mutations, or a particular mathematical model of the pattern of those mutations. We do certainly know that in biological entities, genetic mutations [b]do[/b] occur. We also know, with absolute certainty, of [b]numerous possible causes[/b] of mutations. We need not know, nor pretend to know, of [b]all possible causes[/b] of mutations to know that [b]some[/b] mutations were possible during the eons of evolution of life on Earth.

Your usage of the words "random," "ordered," & "indeterminate" are frequently quite wrong.

Whether it is the case that you genuinely fail to grasp such, or that you conveniently misuse them is irrelevant; that you do misuse them results in your making statements that are wholly misrepresentitive of any number of matters.

.

Okay bring on your worst ....

I do a mean Stars&Stripes - hendrix-esque of course - on a combination wood-saw/Kazoo act (that had 'em in the aisles at the local no-talent quest). Can I do that instead?

Um someone will have to provide tech tips to make this happen. As referred to many times, do not mistake me for someone who knows what goes on on these confounded contraptions.

And we try and we try. And we will continue to try.

Not every Christian is rabid. Not every athiest is wrong. None of us are completely right or wrong, good or bad.

A simple message? Perhaps. But we are simple people.

I will never believe that I should be required to pay for another person's life. I will never believe that we somehow need more government. You will get my personal firearm when you can pry it from my cold dead hands. I will accept the outrageous taxation of America to pay for BS shortly after hell freezes- but if it gets any colder where I live, that will be in the next 15 minutes.

Most of the things that I am interested in have little to do with God. They have everything to do with the life that I live. Catch me in a couple of months when I am training 30+ miles a week. All I talk about or believe in is good socks and dry wicking everything.

People like Sven- or whatever he is calling himself today- are an anathema to people like me. People like me care about finding common ground. We care about stimulating conversation, not maddening ones. We're reasonable but have our limits and state them. In short, we are pretty transparent and really don't care about changing your views. We care about understanding them.

My fiance is athiest. I'm not. We are challenged to find common ground. In that challenge, we found a strongly loving relationship.

I wish that the "Svens" of the world would shut up. I cannot make them. I can remind them that they are being idiots and failing to advance their causes.

Incidentally, I have read Sam Harris. I find him thought provoking. Mostly because I agree with so much of what he has to say. I think that "Christians" are eroding any good that they could potentially bring to the table through intolerance. Additionally, I think that too many of the intellectually challenged find themselves with the loudest (strongest?) voices.

The Sunday edition of the local paper carried an article about one of the biggest "religious leaders" in our area- front page plus two additional pages. Made me sick- people look at this arse and assume that his is the definitive Christian worldview. Not so much. You can see this smeghead here: http://www.startribune.com/462/story/993598.html

We try.

"Additionally, I think that too many of the intellectually challenged find themselves with the loudest (strongest?) voices."

I believe intellectual laziness has more to do with it than real, innate intellectual inability. What I believe about followers is that they expect something for nothing, and that doctrines such as charity and mercy are easier for lazy people than discipline and the necessity of earning rewards.

[i]Then, stalking the stage as he raised his voice and poked the air with his finger, Hammond launched into a sermon on Islam in which he warned of hundreds of thousands of "Islamo-fascists" who could some day set off nuclear devices across America. Right now, Hammond told the crowd, some U.S. mosques are recruiting terrorists; he went on to advocate unyielding support for Israel.[/i]

Unless he's one of them, how would he know what these sneaky "Islamo-fascists" are up to? Food for thought. Anybody hungry?

For a suitable "donation," the good Reverend would send you a "personally autographed picture of Jesus Christ" and/or a "geniune piece of the Cross."

Take note that he carefully failed to specify [i]whose[/i] autograph would appear on the picture, or from [i]which[/i] cross the splinter would come, but, within the context of his speil the faithful would assume the obvious.

Hucksters, all.

He actually makes my fanatical Lutheran mother look like a moderate!

I mean, this is like submitting a government tender, isn't it?

US Pacific Time and all (I mean, I'll pass on Hawaii. That's a fair concession!).

caniberichnowplease, I'd consider the extension if you hadn't called me "Miss", but now I'm offended. IF this goes my way, then the best way to create a customized avatar (best way that I've found, anyway) is to create an account at photobucket.com and store the picture in your account profile. For each file stored, a URL is listed and you can modify your TR profile to reference that URL for your avatar.

It looks like this thread still has legs, so maybe I'm the one who should start sweating.

Absolutely, for someone's who's not a party to the wager, you sure are posting a lot. Please keep your damn opinions to yourself. And tell Deepsand to do the same! (at least until 15-Feb ;) )

I won't speak for deepsand or try to convince him not to post, just so you can win a bet. But, for my part, I didn't intend to post so many replies, until I noticed that this troll "Sven" was just 2Bad4AbuWhoEtcAdNauseum, then I had to dump some gasoline on the little pile of flame bait. At least, I thought it was gasoline. But here it is almost 11 on Monday, and no new posts. Maybe I dumped on him too much?

Evolution [i]is[/i] the primary paradigm of biological sciences, yet you state repeatedly that the Theory of Evolution, or the thinking behind it, falls short of "fundamental scientific rigor". Since science, as defined by [i]practicing scientists[/i] is in disagreement with your [i]conclusions[/i] I think it's time to [i]check your premises[/i].

The word is "indeterminate" not "indeterminant". You have confused that word with "determinant", whose meaning I will not explain to you. You use words that [i]don't exist[/i] to assert conclusions that cannot be supported, even if you did know how to use your own vocabulary. If you knew any of the maths whose names you babble, you would know that they don't mean what you wish them to mean.

You have failed, as has the Discovery Institute, to posit a viable replacement to all or to any part of the Theory of Evolution. An incomplete summary from my perspective:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=208909&messageID=2170599
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=210121&messageID=2170667
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=210121&messageID=2170536

It's true! He ran like hell when he was challenged..

I got about 1/3 the way through your post and found i could not continue until these items were explained:

"He found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10 (262) years."

Please show the proof he used to make this claim.

from PBS:

"Stanley Miller (b. 1930) was a doctoral student working with Urey at the University of Chicago, researching possible environments of early Earth. In 1953 he combined the ideas of Urey and Oparin in a short, simple experiment.

He reproduced the early atmosphere of Earth that Urey proposed by creating a chamber with only hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia. To speed up "geologic time" in his experiment, he boiled the water and instead of exposing the mix to ultraviolet light he used an electric discharge something like lightning. After just a week, Miller had a residue of compounds settled in his system. He analyzed them and the results were electrifying: Organic compounds had been formed, most notably some of the "building blocks of life," amino acids. Amino acids are necessary to form proteins which themselves form the structure of cells and play important roles in the biochemical reactions life requires. Miller found the amino acids glycine, alanine, aspartic and glutamic acid, and others. Fifteen percent of the carbon from the methane had been combined into organic compounds. As amazing as discovering amino acids at all was HOW EASILY THEY HAD FORMED."

"Almost all scientists themselves agree that spontaneous generation is impossible and absurd."

Please show proof that "ALL SCIENTISTS" agree that spontaneous generation is impossible and absurd.

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible."

This is mere conjecture and one man's OPINION.

believeing is a chore, isn't it ?!?

Metaphysical is just a term to describe what MAY exist beyond our senses.

This does not mean something DOES exist beyond our senses...

I hope you didn't take my response wrong. I want to assure you that I didn't mean for you to take my admonition seriously. Post at will and let the chips fall where they may. I'm man enough to pay off my wagers.

(Deepsand, too!)

Edit: 85 posts late last week. 160+ now. It still has legs!!

i believe albert einstein once said given enough time he would prove the existence of god.

is that statement an example of proof?

jk ...

On with the show this is it! We are going to use mathematical language in this discussion.

DETERMINANCE and its opposite INDETERMINANCE is a mathematical concept regarding the predictability of a sum of factors that define an outcome. The mathematics is commonly known as boundary value problems. The most popular text book in use is Boyce Deprima's Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems. Perhaps you should study this book.

Etymology is the study of the origin of words. Let us look at the etymological suffixes:

-ant means to cause a specified action.

-ate means to characterize.

The root "determine" means to find out or come to a decision by investigation, reason, or calculation the answer to a problem.

Hence, something that is INDETERMINANT remarks that a decision is not possible through investigation, reason, or calculation regarding the answer to a problem through a specifed means or action.

I will cease to engage you since you obviously lack the mental agility to keep pace. Perhaps at best we can exchange insults.

Probabilistic outcomes are ordered because the system is able to be described or modelled mathematically though the exact outcome may be indeterminant, unknown, as it would occur statistically, hence probabilistic, in a volume or region of space. That volume or region of space would be bounded and the study of those boundaries are called boundary value problems. This indeterminance is part of Chaos Theory where systems are described as being perfectly ordered but indeterminant.

Determinant systems are commonly linear systems with a high degree of predictability. This is typical of Newtonian science.

Chaos Science and Newtonian science are distinctly different. In fact, Newtonian science applies to a small fraction of the natural. Some estimate the application of Newtonian science to the natural universe to be less than 10% of the systems. Chaos science applies to over 90% of the systems.

Thank you for corroborating my Frankenstein point about unnatural processes. Frankenstien was written in 1831 and Darwin evolution revolution began in 1838. They were closely couple it appears. Mary Shelley was attempting to re-animate life and Charles Darwin was attempting to evolve life. Both are Sci-fi horror thrillers. One from body parts and the other from monkey parts.

My Frankenstein analogy was pointing at irreducible complexity and the natural occurence of life becoming animated other than through copulation. Life simply does not spark in existence from inert materials naturally. There is no natural process for animating inert materials spontaneously. If a critical component of life is removed then returned later, life does not re-ignite even with the application of forces, heat, or energy. The notion of irreducible complexity destroys evolution theory.

"I hope you didn't take my response wrong. I want to assure you that I didn't mean for you to take my admonition seriously."

[i]Not to be petty but ...
Metaphysical is just a term to describe what MAY exist beyond our senses.

This does not mean something DOES exist beyond our senses...[/i]

That would include ultraviolet light, then.

;)

Petty back to you!

And while we're noting things of worth, did anyone else see Max's multiple changes of address? Has someone keyed into his account?

Or has he been Yoodled as well?

Perhaps we'd better have a stab at this ...

To [b]Yoodle[/b]: (verb): [i]To argue loudly and constantly but come to no conclusion whatsoever.[/i]

Evolution is the only path to human existence that makes a d@mned bit of sense, you smeghead!

As I learned it- obviously at the school of tolerance- is that we cannot categorically state that God did not invent evolution. Genesis may have simply been an allegorical story for the edification of those to come. Nor do we know if Darwin was divinely inspired... but that is a different subject altogether.

Athiesim is NOT a "doctrine". There is no traction for that argument. I offer in proof the numbers of "athiests" who were later proven to be agnostics. Guess who was more surprised at this. The researchers who sought to prove a doctrine of athiesm!

We live in times that prove evolution in one form or another. The fabric of society changes by the minute and our lives today are vastly different than our expectations based on the time of our birth.

I participate in a career that did not exist in any meaningful form when I was born. And women certainly did not participate in this career- even though we are really good at it. What accounts for that change?

You are an angry person who only seeks to damage others. In polite society, those of you "holier than holies" should be shunned- if not rejected outright. What amazes me is that you seem so intent to stay.

You fail God in that you have failed to read and understand the black words on the white paper of the book you profess to love. You missed the part about loving people. You missed the part about SHOWING people the grace of God- not screaming it at them. You missed completely the part about salvation through Christ. What a pity.

You are, to paraphrase Corinthians, "a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal". You are word without deed, talking not walking, demand without assurance of gift.

You are a hoax.

What you accomplish is to insure that those of us who walk by faith, trying to model in our lives that which Jesus set out to accomplish, are met with hatred at worst and cynicism at best. Take my word here- we really don't want you on our side.

There are many of us who believe that we are able to speak loudest when we speak without words, but by action. Your action casts a shadow on your desired outcome. It also casts one on mine- guilt by association.

I wish I knew how to feed you a fish (knowledge). I don't think I can even teach you to fish. Sad, really.

I said:

Metaphysical is just a term to describe what MAY exist beyond our senses. This does not mean something DOES exist beyond our senses ...

You said:

That would include ultraviolet light, then.

NO!!!!!

ultraviolet light, although not visible to the NAKED eye, is VISIBLE through other methods like the Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope. It's tantamount to using a microscope to see bacteria. Bacteria are not metaphysical, are they?

Metaphysical to me means UNKNOWN since it cannot be PERCIEVED.

Metaphysical
Merriam Webster's

of or relating to the TRANSCENDANT or to a REALITY BEYOND WHAT IS PERCEPTIBLE to the senses

back to you junior ...

He hasn't bothered to respond. Which indicates to me that he can't respond honestly nor can he refute the points.

Either that or the smegger can't read- a hypothesis gaining credibility as a conclusion.

Either way, he gives me a rash.

Evolution makes sense. We live it daily.

By natural selection? Not so much. We are so busy protecting idiots from themselves that natural selection no longer applies.

I find myself amused by the creative ways that humans find to remove themselves from the gene pool.

I hope that you are picking an appropriate avatar for our erstwhile friend.

Nothing in your bet said that he can't go underground while wearing the red, white, and blue.

You win in my book- even if I was hoping to not have to see all your TR coffee cups.

I don't rate a coffee cup. Why not??? I mention TR in high level security meetings. I try to support the cause along with supporting my socks and ribbons. Why don't I rate?????

We could not get past the very first Evolution Theory premise that assumes that randomness exists. People appear to want to believe what they want and not look at evolution from a detached perspective.

It is clear to me from a pure scientific perspective evolution is not possible. While there may be evidence of mutation and adaptation that is not evolution. While DNA genes mutate due to virus action is does not change the species. In order to do that at the DNA level the timing, duration, and sequencing of genes firing must change and that is not mutated by virus's.

No one has been able to provide any clear natural process of evolution. The whole argument is clouded in techno-noise and passion.

Or, my humor transcends your sensory humor.

:p

From [i]Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary TENTH EDITION[/i], the [b]very source[/b] you claimed:

[b]in*de*ter*mi*na*cy[/b] \-ne-se\ [i]n[/i] (1649) : the quality or state of being indeterminate

[b]indeterminacy principle[/b] [i]n[/i] (ca. 1928): UNDERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

[b]indeterminate[/b] ...

For those wondering why I'm quoting the dictionary so carefully: [b]no entries between "indeterminacy principle"[/b] & [b]indeterminate!![/b] "Indetermina[b]nt[/b]", if such a word were to be found in this alphabetical list of words with their definitions, would be [i]after[/i] "indetermina[b]cy[/b] principle" and [i]before[/i] "indetermina[b]nt[/b]". But [b]no word is[/b] between those!

How much more of what you post is only a figment of your imagination?

If you don't know why I [i]emphasized[/i] the word "addition" in the title, go find it in a dictionary.

Much like when Tigger walked the 3-day, I think it would be nice if all TR members used this as their avatar for the next two weeks. Whaddya say?

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m193/DMambo/GWB.jpg

You must be kidding, never in my life I will get that one up as my Avitar, Bush II.
Really you must be kidding.

Rob

[i]edited for format[/i]

tell me which book ur reading and i'll go to the brilliant peoples bookstore and check it out.

in other words, put up or shut up :)

i just checked MY Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th edition and indeterminant is not in there. can you tell me what page it's on?

wow, i copied and pasted the genius' typo !!!

from the prologue ...

"In the mountain towns of the West, clouds barely resemble the sooty INDETERMINATE low-flying hazes that fill the Eastern air."

my simple mind is intelligent enough to admit when i am wrong :)

what a retard this guy is.

and he wants us to explain evolution to us ...