The king of pud pullers appears to "enrich" the debate.
Did someone move the rock you normally crawl out from?
Pop goes the Turok....
Did someone move the rock you normally crawl out from?
Pop goes the Turok....
Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
I see nothing's changed--you pop up for flaming and ad hominem attacks that add nothing to the topic or debate.....
How many times does this have to be said?
A speaker's or a writer's hypocrisy is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of an agrument.....
Now go back to playing guitar alone in a motel room.....
How many times does this have to be said?
A speaker's or a writer's hypocrisy is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of an agrument.....
Now go back to playing guitar alone in a motel room.....
amoebas are conscious??
haha
do they have,,, "personalities" too
bwa ha
bwahahahaha
bwahahahahhahhahahahahahahahaahhaha!!
so what's the point?????
steven is using "mind of god" metaphorically. do you see the difference?
Quote from dogs of dow:
amoebas are conscious??
haha
do they have,,, "personalities" too
bwa ha
bwahahahaha
bwahahahahhahhahahahahahahahaahhaha!!
You mean to ask, do amoebas have different behavioral predispositions, no matter how slight, that could be interpreted as a "personality"? That IS a fascinating question, but would require very sensitive instrumentation and a Cray supercomputer to process all the data.
Conscious as in aware of their existence as a sentient being.
If you cut an amoeba in half, does it experience pain and sensation, does it resist this cutting in attempts to survive as a whole entity?
Does it respond to environmental or external stress in an attempt to survive?
While a rock will resist cutting in half due to its composition and basic laws of molecular structure, etc., there is no adaptation in the rock to external pressure. Sufficient force will crack the rock the exact same way an infinite number of times, where living beings will attempt to survive via adaptation. Rocks and inorganic materials don't attempt to survive through adaptation and cellular regeneration.
Cut a rock in half, you get two rocks each and every time. Cut a rock into one hundred pieces, you get one hundred rocks each and every time. A slice of a rock, no matter how small, is still a rock. Cut a nugget of gold, slice a diamond, you get diamonds and gold as long as you are not dividing their inorganic molecular structure.
A slice of a living being is generally not going to live independently.
Cut a complex organism in parts and it may or may not survive, and will not likely produce two living beings.
Living organisms which are made of both organic and inorganic compounds all show an attempt to adapt and change when something threatens their life in order to maintain their survival, inorganic compounds and structure do not.
"Organic compounds are produced by living things. Inorganic compounds are produced by non-living natural processes or by human intervention in the laboratory."
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec2000/975719013.Ch.r.html
The debate is whether or not the biological organisms have this nature to adapt and survive by chance, or by design.
If by design, then all changes that might happen as a biological organism attempts to survive though the power and through the process of adaptation would fundamentally be by design as well.
I doubt anyone of even a minute intelligence would doubt living beings are programmed for survival, the unknown is whether or not there was a programmer behind the programming.....
To teach that there is or was no programmer, without proof of such, is of course quite unscientific as there is no scientific proof that there is or was no programmer behind the programming.
If you cut an amoeba in half, does it experience pain and sensation, does it resist this cutting in attempts to survive as a whole entity?
Does it respond to environmental or external stress in an attempt to survive?
While a rock will resist cutting in half due to its composition and basic laws of molecular structure, etc., there is no adaptation in the rock to external pressure. Sufficient force will crack the rock the exact same way an infinite number of times, where living beings will attempt to survive via adaptation. Rocks and inorganic materials don't attempt to survive through adaptation and cellular regeneration.
Cut a rock in half, you get two rocks each and every time. Cut a rock into one hundred pieces, you get one hundred rocks each and every time. A slice of a rock, no matter how small, is still a rock. Cut a nugget of gold, slice a diamond, you get diamonds and gold as long as you are not dividing their inorganic molecular structure.
A slice of a living being is generally not going to live independently.
Cut a complex organism in parts and it may or may not survive, and will not likely produce two living beings.
Living organisms which are made of both organic and inorganic compounds all show an attempt to adapt and change when something threatens their life in order to maintain their survival, inorganic compounds and structure do not.
"Organic compounds are produced by living things. Inorganic compounds are produced by non-living natural processes or by human intervention in the laboratory."
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec2000/975719013.Ch.r.html
The debate is whether or not the biological organisms have this nature to adapt and survive by chance, or by design.
If by design, then all changes that might happen as a biological organism attempts to survive though the power and through the process of adaptation would fundamentally be by design as well.
I doubt anyone of even a minute intelligence would doubt living beings are programmed for survival, the unknown is whether or not there was a programmer behind the programming.....
To teach that there is or was no programmer, without proof of such, is of course quite unscientific as there is no scientific proof that there is or was no programmer behind the programming.
No, what's scientific is to adhere to the simplest explanation, which is observable by all, that explains the phenomena, and which also, handily, has predictive power. This is particularly handy in that it shuts down all those "blind ignorant chance" competing arguments that the phenomena is caused by magic dragons, planetary alignments, some guy with telekinesis, my angry neighbor, people with odd shaped skulls, the angels dancing on a pinhead, the kid with his car stereo cranked, etc.
Edit: Did I forget to mention witches??
The simplest explanation is design.
Random is so difficult to imagine, except for those who have already chosen a path of atheism.
Get a kid to understand the concept of random, and the concept of design.
Tell him nothing of Darwinism or Creationism, just the concept of order and chaos, design versus chance.
Have him go out in the world. Have him observe all of nature and the world around him.
Then ask him which makes more sense:
1. That this is all by accident and random chance.
2. This is by design.
Yes, and the predictive part:
The sun will rise tomorrow.....
Random is so difficult to imagine, except for those who have already chosen a path of atheism.
Get a kid to understand the concept of random, and the concept of design.
Tell him nothing of Darwinism or Creationism, just the concept of order and chaos, design versus chance.
Have him go out in the world. Have him observe all of nature and the world around him.
Then ask him which makes more sense:
1. That this is all by accident and random chance.
2. This is by design.
Yes, and the predictive part:
The sun will rise tomorrow.....