By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
"I dont buy it and still think theres a designer behind it all. That seems to make more sense."
That means that Rednapp could be the designer! The ultimate Wheeler / Dealer of fate.
Which is the perfect argument for evolution - things that evolving from chemical and physical reactions - without a Rosie bank account to to finance some `'top, top, triffok, triffick fings what sort of happened to fall in front of me."
That makes far more sense. There is no right or wrong - just happenings. Especially if you have invested in a shyte personal pension which looks like it was cooked up "deep in the geological crannies in the ocean floors some 4bn years ago."
Interesting article and a good attempt at explaining natural selection . Correct me if i'm wrong though but i thought the article undone all its theory about the "selfish" gene with this comment - "Logically, a metabolism of sorts must have preceded the establishment of the first selfish gene, and some of us now think that it might have occurred deep in the geological crannies in the ocean floors some 4bn years ago."
It still doesnt explain how it all started and fobbed it off with comments about crannies in the ocean floor billions of years ago.. It ties in with my comment about the cell not working without molecules working together for it to survive. Different components including this so called selfish gene would have to "evolve" at the same time for it to work. I mean, one tiny molecules forming out of thin air is one thing but hundreds ? at the same time? assimilating , reproducing?. Why aren't fish still evolving? Not only have we got thousands of different species , but each one has a male and female gene ..Sorry but evolution is too far fetched for me. Another question. How comes every species of life doesn't have a conscience. How comes only humans have a built in method of knowing right from wrong? Surely if we are just chemicals randomly thrown together and it was just a matter of survival of the fittest than why do we have emotions.?why does food taste so good, why do we enjoy life. The survival bit (work etc) is a flipping bore. I dont buy it and still think theres a designer behind it all. That seems to make more sense. Evolution makes a great music vid though..and ironically shows the absurdity of it. Imho.
[Post edited 29 May 2016 22:20]
Wow. You really laid your thoughts out there.
I am certainly no expert - I have an aging degree in Biology from a Poly and a New Scientist subscription - so I can only answer any of them with my own understandings and interpretations, and not even all of them, in one go.
I think that metabolism in this sense simply means a provision of energy, rather than intelligence as maybe you have understood it. So that's done.
Where did you get the notion that fish have stopped evolving? Chuck that notion out.
There is no single gene for male or female, but, in most species, sets of genes on the X and Y chromosomes that give rise to a male or female phenotype. And indeed there are some fish that are a male and female at the same time (e.g. sea bass, apparently).
Why does food taste so good? Because it's a really good idea to eat it. Most species struggle so very hard to find food. So that when they find some good stuff, the individuals that have evolved to enjoy it will eat it and go on to breed and pass on that enjoyment of life fueling food. Those that are less bothered might very well die - through lack of food - before they pass on their indifference.
You'll find reams of stuff about the genetic and evolutionary basis of conscience. I know next to zip (oops! an Americanism! Sorry Clive Anderson...) about it, so won't comment.
"still think theres a designer behind it all" As I've alluded to before in this thread this is a self-defeating argument. If all this wondrous beauty around us cannot exist without an intelligence brilliant enough to design it, then, by the same logic, that intelligence cannot exist without an even more brilliant intelligence to have designed it! And so on, ad infinitum.
Now, a cosmic accident that lead to one molecule that was able to replicate and draw other components over an immense time scale - and remember there have been 4.5 billion years on earth for that event to occur and pan out as evolutionists consider it may have seems, to me, far more feasible than the ultimate 747. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit
I don't expect to convince you PunteR. But I hope I've given you some things to consider.
2. Nothing has purpose. You exist because of a range of preceding circumstances. Food doesn't taste good for a reason, but you're around because your species developed a mechanism to stimulate eating. Others didn't, failed.
3. The universe is teeming with life. Humans aren't that different from the rest of it, they just happen to be at the top of their local food chain.
A magnificent football club, the love of our lives, finding a way to finally have its day in the sun.
2. Nothing has purpose. You exist because of a range of preceding circumstances. Food doesn't taste good for a reason, but you're around because your species developed a mechanism to stimulate eating. Others didn't, failed.
3. The universe is teeming with life. Humans aren't that different from the rest of it, they just happen to be at the top of their local food chain.
The nuts and bolts stuff is fine,you can dissect all you like but no one has explained away where the energy that pertains to the life force originates.Especially since latest findings indicate "intelligence" may not sit within the brain. As for life forms like us inhabiting the universe,not sure it's all Star Wars/Star Trek versions of humans with bad skin conditions indicating they are extra terrestrial.And of course there are the silicon based variations that may or may not resemble Sue Perkins.
I am certainly no expert - I have an aging degree in Biology from a Poly and a New Scientist subscription - so I can only answer any of them with my own understandings and interpretations, and not even all of them, in one go.
I think that metabolism in this sense simply means a provision of energy, rather than intelligence as maybe you have understood it. So that's done.
Where did you get the notion that fish have stopped evolving? Chuck that notion out.
There is no single gene for male or female, but, in most species, sets of genes on the X and Y chromosomes that give rise to a male or female phenotype. And indeed there are some fish that are a male and female at the same time (e.g. sea bass, apparently).
Why does food taste so good? Because it's a really good idea to eat it. Most species struggle so very hard to find food. So that when they find some good stuff, the individuals that have evolved to enjoy it will eat it and go on to breed and pass on that enjoyment of life fueling food. Those that are less bothered might very well die - through lack of food - before they pass on their indifference.
You'll find reams of stuff about the genetic and evolutionary basis of conscience. I know next to zip (oops! an Americanism! Sorry Clive Anderson...) about it, so won't comment.
"still think theres a designer behind it all" As I've alluded to before in this thread this is a self-defeating argument. If all this wondrous beauty around us cannot exist without an intelligence brilliant enough to design it, then, by the same logic, that intelligence cannot exist without an even more brilliant intelligence to have designed it! And so on, ad infinitum.
Now, a cosmic accident that lead to one molecule that was able to replicate and draw other components over an immense time scale - and remember there have been 4.5 billion years on earth for that event to occur and pan out as evolutionists consider it may have seems, to me, far more feasible than the ultimate 747. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit
I don't expect to convince you PunteR. But I hope I've given you some things to consider.
[Post edited 30 May 2016 9:41]
Ha, i laid it on thick didn't I.. Just putting my thoughts out there. I've got plenty more where that came from. :) Thanks mate for taking the time to try and answer them. I don't have any degree's in anything ,just a couple of GCSE's (not in science) but I have studied the bible.(updated new world translation version, not king James version) I've analysed and questioned religion and come to the conclusion that most religions have damaged peoples faith in a god because of the hypocrisy, lies, and corruption. Any religion that takes sides in a war, holy or not, is not the right religion Imo. And most of them do. To use a football analogy. I see the church like FIFA. FIFA was set up because football needed organising around the world, it needed to set out rules and regulations for the game to be carried out fairly across the board. But it got powerful and greedy and in the end corrupt.(I think the same applies to governments). In the end people get fed up with it. Football though is still the beautiful game regardless of the corruption surrounding it. Its the same with a belief in god or being spiritual. Its the people running the show that have ruined it. Science has made some remarkable genuine discovery's and I'm relying on them to fix my son who has MEN2B. (multiple Endocrine Neoplasia). But theres is still much more for science to discover wether its about the human body or about the meaning of life. I'm always open to suggestions.:)
Great discussion. Point to kensalriser, among others, I thought.
I'm not sure that nature does 'work', to refer back to an earlier post. The distinction requires us to know what it would be for nature not to work. If the purpose of a watch is to tell the time and it doesn't do so, it isn't working. We decide what it's purpose is, so we decide whether it works or not.
But what is the purpose of nature? If there is no evidence that it has a purpose, how do we know whether it is working or not?
And how does the Scientific Model of the Universe - which does both from time to time - purport to explain the real Universe by MEANS of the Science that makes up the Scientific Model, when the real Universe never does either?
Great discussion. Point to kensalriser, among others, I thought.
I'm not sure that nature does 'work', to refer back to an earlier post. The distinction requires us to know what it would be for nature not to work. If the purpose of a watch is to tell the time and it doesn't do so, it isn't working. We decide what it's purpose is, so we decide whether it works or not.
But what is the purpose of nature? If there is no evidence that it has a purpose, how do we know whether it is working or not?
And how does the Scientific Model of the Universe - which does both from time to time - purport to explain the real Universe by MEANS of the Science that makes up the Scientific Model, when the real Universe never does either?
The maker of the watch decides what its purpose is. We decide if we want it or not. Who sets the time is a big question. The earth rotates around the sun, the moon rotates around earth. We have 4 seasons,night and day ,it all works . A couple of feet towards the sun we fry ,a couple away we freeze. Science. I mentioned the "laws" of physics in a earlier post, the law of gravity FDC dismissed but how about the laws of time? who sets those? The earth rotating around the sun anti clockwise seems a strange concept.
The maker of the watch decides what its purpose is. We decide if we want it or not. Who sets the time is a big question. The earth rotates around the sun, the moon rotates around earth. We have 4 seasons,night and day ,it all works . A couple of feet towards the sun we fry ,a couple away we freeze. Science. I mentioned the "laws" of physics in a earlier post, the law of gravity FDC dismissed but how about the laws of time? who sets those? The earth rotating around the sun anti clockwise seems a strange concept.
[Post edited 30 May 2016 23:36]
The Earth rotating anti clockwise?It all depends which way up you are. A different theory of relativity.
The maker of the watch decides what its purpose is. We decide if we want it or not. Who sets the time is a big question. The earth rotates around the sun, the moon rotates around earth. We have 4 seasons,night and day ,it all works . A couple of feet towards the sun we fry ,a couple away we freeze. Science. I mentioned the "laws" of physics in a earlier post, the law of gravity FDC dismissed but how about the laws of time? who sets those? The earth rotating around the sun anti clockwise seems a strange concept.
[Post edited 30 May 2016 23:36]
the law of gravity FDC dismissed
I'm not sure I can take credit for that -- that was Einstein.
"For what purpose little man?What do you know about purpose?... ....go to the end of Fantock Boulevard,to the House With No Windows and ask the robot for a pair of India rubber spectacles.... ....they will give you logical dreams"
nature and the whole universe is not some sort of intricate solution or mechanism it is fundamentally chaotic. what we see on earth and from the earth only makes any sort of sense because of our own terms of reference and experience of time
I think there probably has been a decline in social behaviour over the past 100 years. I'm not saying its completely down to lack of faith, but a certain amount could be — again just putting it out there as a thought.
Hahahaha. That is such a fallacy. Exactly what decline in social behavior are you thinking of?
Are you talking about 100 years ago when racism, sexism, domestic violence, and homophobia were all considered socially accepted?
Are you talking about 100 years ago when the aristocracy still considered themselves superior to the common plebs?
Are you talking 100 years ago when war was waged for empire and colonial empires reeked havoc across the world, stealing resources and enslaving whole populations for the benefit of the royal patron?
Are you talking 100 years ago when toffee-nosed brainless generals led working class privates into the breach to be slaughtered in their thousands on French battlefields?
Are you talking 100 years ago when a cube of sugar was considered a huge treat and Cadburys Cream Eggs hadn't been invented yet?
Hahahaha. That is such a fallacy. Exactly what decline in social behavior are you thinking of?
Are you talking about 100 years ago when racism, sexism, domestic violence, and homophobia were all considered socially accepted?
Are you talking about 100 years ago when the aristocracy still considered themselves superior to the common plebs?
Are you talking 100 years ago when war was waged for empire and colonial empires reeked havoc across the world, stealing resources and enslaving whole populations for the benefit of the royal patron?
Are you talking 100 years ago when toffee-nosed brainless generals led working class privates into the breach to be slaughtered in their thousands on French battlefields?
Are you talking 100 years ago when a cube of sugar was considered a huge treat and Cadburys Cream Eggs hadn't been invented yet?
Yeah, those were better times, weren't they?
I think your wrong there Dylan mate. You honestly believe war and terrorism was worse 100 years ago? I think I'm right in saying that in 2014 only 11 country's around the world wasn't affected by war. Not to mention the 2 world wars in that 100 years. In that 100 years how many nuclear weapons have been built? Drug abuse, child abuse, gambling addiction, marriage break ups, disease,poverty...etc etc I'm not saying everything was Rosie hundred years ago but it has got worse imho. I'm also not saying its because people don't believe in god either.
People will be ar$eholes to one another for any number of reasons. Religion is simply one more to add to the list. I think the biggest issue comes from the hierarchical nature of religion rather than simply faith in a power(s) beyond our normal understanding.
Example: Person X believes that the sunset is beautiful. Person Y also believes that the sunset is beautiful but also believes that it is beautiful because it was designed to be beautiful. No problem. Doesn't change anybody's day. They both enjoy the sunset for different reasons. However, add another variable:
Person Z believes also that the sunset is beautiful because it was designed to be so. However, they believe that this has a moral dimension, ie. it is 'good' that the sunset is beautiful. This final element is the game changer. If the sunset's beauty is good, then the designer exhibits goodness. This can then be applied to other natural phenomena (e.g. the link between sex and pregnancy) and can be used to reason out a series of implied moral imperatives. Because they have already worked out these imperatives, people who haven't will defer to them, simply because, on the face of it, these moral imperatives make sense. This creates a hierarchy and one that can become entrenched and dogmatic, at which point it becomes exploitative.
We can see this as a problem all across the world and not just with faith groups. Pol Pot, for example, murdered 25% of his own population based on an ideological position that had absolutely nothing to do with religious belief but faith in the 'project'.
Faith, in and of itself, is no threat to anyone. Exploitation of faith (whether in a religious or non-religious context) is extremely dangerous.
Sorry. Thinking out loud. I'll go back to nob gags immediately.
[Post edited 25 Jun 2016 14:46]
'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!'
I think your wrong there Dylan mate. You honestly believe war and terrorism was worse 100 years ago? I think I'm right in saying that in 2014 only 11 country's around the world wasn't affected by war. Not to mention the 2 world wars in that 100 years. In that 100 years how many nuclear weapons have been built? Drug abuse, child abuse, gambling addiction, marriage break ups, disease,poverty...etc etc I'm not saying everything was Rosie hundred years ago but it has got worse imho. I'm also not saying its because people don't believe in god either.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
