StarLord
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,187
Re: The Creation of Man
Dmitri,
How exactly do you mean that this world is very regular?
Dmitri,
How exactly do you mean that this world is very regular?
The Creation of Man
- Thread starter virtualgirl
- Start date
Re: The Creation of Man
A couple of days ago, I gave a book on a critique of the evolutionary theory to one of the most prominent biologist of our time, wondering about his opinion. He bounced it back the next day saying he does not have time for this book, and that it is a creationist book, and that there are many of this kind out there. It is a shame, with all this -isms and labels, and no willingness to think arguments over. This should change soon, I hope. The intelligent design concept is based on observations; it is not just rhetorical, while Darwinism is.
A couple of days ago, I gave a book on a critique of the evolutionary theory to one of the most prominent biologist of our time, wondering about his opinion. He bounced it back the next day saying he does not have time for this book, and that it is a creationist book, and that there are many of this kind out there. It is a shame, with all this -isms and labels, and no willingness to think arguments over. This should change soon, I hope. The intelligent design concept is based on observations; it is not just rhetorical, while Darwinism is.
Re: The Creation of Man
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"StarLord\")</div>
Back to the regularity: in the concept of many worlds, there would be a trajectory of very improbable events coming one after another, resulting explanation of pretty much any event just by mere luck. We do not observe those things happening in everyday life. If someone would win the New-York lottery three times in a row and would not be a cheater, then we might live in a world that may have come to originate life through a long sequence of improbable events, and the guy may still continue his winning steak, and we would say, ?Well there does not seem to be an explanation other than his luck, but this is how our world is, just one out of the infinity of others. So the guy may continue, making less news since people got used to him, but rather presenting an example of how life may have originated and developed by chance.? This is not our world. Here fortunately we can determine reasons of many events, including genetic changes. We are learning more about transposable elements and how they are involved in gene rearrangements. Soon we should be able to reconstruct events in the origin of new genes and learn enough to consider functional scenarios. That chance cannot play a significant role here is already obvious; see for example ?Mathematics of Evolution? by F. Hoyle, and ?Not by chance? by L. Spetner. I think we should pay more attention to the ways mobile DNA functions. We are already doing this, but the progress, interpretation and distribution of grants is hampered by the Darwinian misconception.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"StarLord\")</div>
By regular I mean fairly predictable based on laws of physics and probability so that observations, not chains of miracles, make for concrete knowledge. In fact, I think we do not need miracles to prove the existence of Absolute. Leibniz said the existence itself is the proof, and I agree.
Back to the regularity: in the concept of many worlds, there would be a trajectory of very improbable events coming one after another, resulting explanation of pretty much any event just by mere luck. We do not observe those things happening in everyday life. If someone would win the New-York lottery three times in a row and would not be a cheater, then we might live in a world that may have come to originate life through a long sequence of improbable events, and the guy may still continue his winning steak, and we would say, ?Well there does not seem to be an explanation other than his luck, but this is how our world is, just one out of the infinity of others. So the guy may continue, making less news since people got used to him, but rather presenting an example of how life may have originated and developed by chance.? This is not our world. Here fortunately we can determine reasons of many events, including genetic changes. We are learning more about transposable elements and how they are involved in gene rearrangements. Soon we should be able to reconstruct events in the origin of new genes and learn enough to consider functional scenarios. That chance cannot play a significant role here is already obvious; see for example ?Mathematics of Evolution? by F. Hoyle, and ?Not by chance? by L. Spetner. I think we should pay more attention to the ways mobile DNA functions. We are already doing this, but the progress, interpretation and distribution of grants is hampered by the Darwinian misconception.
[email protected]
New Member
- Messages
- 17
Re: The Creation of Man
I was wondering, if one would go back in time to Adam and Eve, and would kill both, would humans cease to exist?
I was wondering, if one would go back in time to Adam and Eve, and would kill both, would humans cease to exist?
Re: The Creation of Man
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"[email protected]\")</div>
That depends of the reality of Adam & Eve being the first man and woman on the planet. Hard to imagine that all of humanity came from just one orginal couple, and yes, I've seen the documentary that says all of humanity can be traced back to one woman on the plains of Africa. But let's say that there was one couple in the beginning. How did their children propagate? It would have had to be incest. Who knows, maybe that was not a problem back then and the pickins' were pretty slim. Not trying to spark a religious debate here, just questioning the biblical interpretation of the beginning of man.
Cary
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"[email protected]\")</div>
That depends of the reality of Adam & Eve being the first man and woman on the planet. Hard to imagine that all of humanity came from just one orginal couple, and yes, I've seen the documentary that says all of humanity can be traced back to one woman on the plains of Africa. But let's say that there was one couple in the beginning. How did their children propagate? It would have had to be incest. Who knows, maybe that was not a problem back then and the pickins' were pretty slim. Not trying to spark a religious debate here, just questioning the biblical interpretation of the beginning of man.
Cary
headiebean
Junior Member
- Messages
- 54
Re: The Creation of Man
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"[email protected]\")</div>
that is just another version of the grandfather paradox.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"[email protected]\")</div>
that is just another version of the grandfather paradox.
Chronodynamic Jim
Junior Member
- Messages
- 116
Re: The Creation of Man
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"[email protected]\")</div>
Nobody did, so nobody won't, so they won't, and we are.
Besides, it would be a better idea to kill the snake before it tricked Eve thus ensureing a happy future for mankind. At least untill Satan managed to trick that dingbat some other way. Uughh, best just to leave the whole mess in Jehovah's very qualified hands.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"[email protected]\")</div>
Nobody did, so nobody won't, so they won't, and we are.
Besides, it would be a better idea to kill the snake before it tricked Eve thus ensureing a happy future for mankind. At least untill Satan managed to trick that dingbat some other way. Uughh, best just to leave the whole mess in Jehovah's very qualified hands.
StarLord
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,187
Re: The Creation of Man
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Chronodynamic Jim\")</div>
While Jehova might rule this planet, I would prefer to do business whith his 'Father'.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Chronodynamic Jim\")</div>
While Jehova might rule this planet, I would prefer to do business whith his 'Father'.
Chronodynamic Jim
Junior Member
- Messages
- 116
Re: The Creation of Man
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"StarLord\")</div>
And who might that be?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"StarLord\")</div>
And who might that be?