Ok, so if you are not an atheist, then I do apologize, you would however be the first non atheist to respond to any of my ideas. The odd thing is that I have not even used God in my thinking of intelligent design, what the average evolutionist can not comprehend, is that physicist and genetic engineers are all intelligent, and can certainly perform the God function, by simply inventing a way to leave the Earth for another place.Again, you are trying to assume my beliefs without even asking. Not only that, you did use "god", when you said "God is what intelligent people strive to be". The idea of a "god function" is purely a human concept, specifically yours in this case. Interesting how you attempt to twist words and make assumptions about people, without inquiry or anything else.
Ok, so if you are not an atheist, then I do apologize, you would however be the first non atheist to respond to any of my ideas. The odd thing is that I have not even used God in my thinking of intelligent design, what the average evolutionist can not comprehend, is that physicist and genetic engineers are all intelligent, and can certainly perform the God function, by simply inventing a way to leave the Earth for another place.Again, you are trying to assume my beliefs without even asking. Not only that, you did use "god", when you said "God is what intelligent people strive to be". The idea of a "god function" is purely a human concept, specifically yours in this case. Interesting how you attempt to twist words and make assumptions about people, without inquiry or anything else. Yawn........! http://0.s3.envato.com/files/5182584/Clown-Makes-Funny-Face.jpg
The odd thing is that I have not even used God in my thinking of intelligent design, what the average evolutionist can not comprehend, is that physicist and genetic engineers are all intelligent, and can certainly perform the God function, by simply inventing a way to leave the Earth for another place.But see here, Mud, you claim that all intelligent beings "perform the God function" (whatever THAT is), then turn around and claim you haven't used God in your thinking. You're obviously very confused, Mud. Try to sort out your "thinking" a little bit and then get back to us.
...DNA is not a metaphorical hard drive, it is a physical hard drive, that was created in the past, by someone with millions to billions of years more skill than our own...Just when I think I have a handle on your grand understanding of your particular version of Intelligent Design, I begin to worry that I don't quite get it. So far, I think you were saying that we humans are programmed by our own DNA to progress to the point, that we can pass on DNA to the next incarnation of a universe, when this one ends. So, instead, are you saying that we got DNA from some other intelligent species or entity that existed early in our current universe, or in some other preceding or alternate universe? If so, where is that species or entity now? Also, by what mechanism, do you propose that they, or it, inserted DNA on earth?
What I did was post a beautiful picture, of a beautiful woman doing a beautiful thing. That for some reason has aggravated you.....!No, that did not aggravate me. However, saying that god is what intelligent people strive to be is incorrect. An intelligent person strives to better themselves and society, which has nothing to do with a god. And who in his right mind would strive to be the sadistic, contradictory, god of the bible? We'd have to be completely bonkers! Lois
You must have missed it. The Designer that is part of Coral’s “theory” is a benevolent entity. (I am not sure but I think his Designer just got life going in our universe, by creating DNA and inserting it at some point in the history of Earth. And ever since then, the history of all of life’s manifestations have been directed by DNA.)
If he stopped there, I could say, ok, cool 1970’s sci-fi idea. However, I am perplexed about his argument that one species cannot become another (although one might presume that, that would also have been pre-programmed into the DNA). But Coral was quite vociferous re: there being no scrap of evidence for one species ever having become another. So I am left to presume that the Intelligent Designer has had to make house calls, to introduce new species, throughout the course of the history of life.
And now, is when we should stop focusing on (such troubling questions about) the past. We should look to our beautiful, pre-programmed-by-DNA, future.
Oh and the benevolent intelligent designer that created DNA lived millions or billions of years ago. Not sure about whether It is still around. Maybe we are on our own now, and will have to introduce any new species, ourselves.
What I did was post a beautiful picture, of a beautiful woman doing a beautiful thing. That for some reason has aggravated you.....!No, that did not aggravate me. However, saying that god is what intelligent people strive to be is incorrect. An intelligent person strives to better themselves and society, which has nothing to do with a god. And who in his right mind would strive to be the sadistic, contradictory, god of the bible? We'd have to be completely bonkers! Lois What intelligent person would strive for such a thing? What coral star was saying wasn't that of the intelligent and when anyone pointed that out to him, he twisted what he had said. So it seems to me your bonkers statement fits well too.
Oh lordy we have another one. 8-/
All dogs, are still dogs, and all cats are still cats.Which, oddly enough have a common ancestor.]
If they're alive, they are not still dogs and cats. They move around, run and bark or meow. :) LoisAll dogs, are still dogs, and all cats are still cats.Which, oddly enough have a common ancestor.]
Hmmm, sounds like a sock puppet. Could this be Coral star reborn?
Cap’t Jack
Hmmm, sounds like a sock puppet. Could this be Coral star reborn?Appears to be a sock puppet, so I have deleted the account. Thanks.
Makes it look like I made up quote, but good move Doug.
The big problem with the book, The Origin of the Species, is that the book has nothing to do with the origin of any species, thus if you read the book, you will learn nothing about species origins. The book should have been titled The evolution of the Species, since that is what is about. But then the average devoted birdwatcher, is not typically a great writer.I'm coming into this way late, and someone has probably already said this, but: Yes, the book does explain the origin of species. What it doesn't explain (and where your confusion lies) is the origin of life itself. But natural selection is the reason we have all of the different species that we have, thus it is literally the origin of species. Without natural selection, there would only be one form of life--and it would probably barely qualify as life anyway. Rather, it would just be some relatively simple, self-replicating molecule. Thanks, natural selection, for being the origin of all the diverse species on earth!
The big problem with the book, The Origin of the Species, is that the book has nothing to do with the origin of any species, thus if you read the book, you will learn nothing about species origins. The book should have been titled The evolution of the Species, since that is what is about. But then the average devoted birdwatcher, is not typically a great writer.I'm coming into this way late, and someone has probably already said this, but: Yes, the book does explain the origin of species. What it doesn't explain (and where your confusion lies) is the origin of life itself. But natural selection is the reason we have all of the different species that we have, thus it is literally the origin of species. Without natural selection, there would only be one form of life--and it would probably barely qualify as life anyway. Rather, it would just be some relatively simple, self-replicating molecule. Thanks, natural selection, for being the origin of all the diverse species on earth! Darwin named it Origin of Species and not Origin of Life for a reason. He was not addressing the origin of life but what happened to it after it began--something religious fools fail to grasp. They have nothing but a fairy tale to explain life's origin, yet they demand that scientists do them one better--not that they would accept a scientific explanation, anyway. Darwin was aware of the kinds of fools he would have to deal with, but I doubt he could have guessed the lengths Christians would go to to deny his discoveries because they would claim that they contradict the bible. Lois
Darwin named it Origin of Species and not Origin of Life for a reason. He was not addressing the origin of life but what happened to it after it began--something religious fools fail to grasp. They have nothing but a fairy tale to explain life's origin, yet they demand that scientists do them one better--not that they would accept a scientific explanation, anyway. Darwin was aware of the kinds of fools he would have to deal with, but I doubt he could have guessed the lengths Christians would go to to deny his discoveries because they would claim that they contradict the bible. LoisWell, evolution by natural selection is "just a theory" after all. And since it's "just a theory", it obviously can't also be a fact, proven well beyond any reasonable doubt. Because, "fact" and "theory" are mutually exclusive terms...obviously. You know, like gravitational theory and germ theory. They can't also be facts, can they? And atomic theory? If atoms are real, how come I haven't seen any photographs of them? Kind of suspicious if you ask me...
Oh brother! :roll: You are confusing the Vulgar use of the word theory with the scientific use of it. The two are not the same.
Oh brother! :roll: You are confusing the Vulgar use of the word theory with the scientific use of it. The two are not the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.htmlWhoosh! Right over yer head.
Oh brother! :roll: You are confusing the Vulgar use of the word theory with the scientific use of it. The two are not the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.htmlI think your irony detector needs a polish ;-) .