Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which biological populations evolve to become distinct species.Sure don't.Thank you.I have no doubt that there are many and fundamental reasons for you to be humble, fency.
Ironically, as I understand it, Christians are supposed to be humble also.
I don't see much of that around here.
.
Now...why would you go there?
Could it be to avoid this?
It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....
....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?
Someone may.
Why is this so important?
.
"Why is this so important?"
Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.
And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which biological populations evolve to become distinct species.Sure don't.Thank you.I have no doubt that there are many and fundamental reasons for you to be humble, fency.
Ironically, as I understand it, Christians are supposed to be humble also.
I don't see much of that around here.
.
Now...why would you go there?
Could it be to avoid this?
It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....
....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?
Someone may.
Why is this so important?
.
"Why is this so important?"
Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.
And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.
How do you think giraffe started out? Do you think they started out as adult giraffe? How were they born? Do you see the fatal flaw in your theory. If you deny evolution then you probably believe a god poofed them into existence.
You're a fucking idiot.1. What the heck has happened to science??
I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e., the vaunted Scientific Method?
Prologue;
Since the Enlightenment, the attempt has been made to replace religion with science, and the view that mankind can explain, and, ultimately replace, God and religion. In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'
Whatever comes out of the mouths.....computers.....of scientists is given the same acceptance as was once attributed to the utterances of priests.
You know, there are more working 'scientists' today than the total of all of 'em in earlier times....so, perhaps the glut, the overabundance, has done to intelligent exploration just as the government's working the monetary printing presses overtime has done to the value of money.
Science today suffers from inflation.
How else to explain the nonsense that passes for science today?
2. Case in point: at one time, science endeavored to discover the laws that explain our world, our universe, and how it came into existence. Science, today, seems content to accept every crackpot view with a thoughtful look and sincere stroking of one's chin, as though it actually made sense.
a. "The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
3. Brian Greene, "an American theoretical physicist and string theorist. He has been a professor at Columbia University since 1996 and chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008. (Brian Greene - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"
"The Hidden Reality is a book by Brian Greene published in 2011 which explores the concept of the multiverse and the possibility of parallel universes. It has been nominated for the Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books for 2012.
(The Hidden Reality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"
a. From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theory after 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method, although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos
4. Science today.
Well, OK....'scientists' have to make a living, too. But there are dunces who not only accept this nonsense, but they try to use this kind of ordure as an attack on religion. You can see an interview with Greene about this book, here: Book Discussion Hidden Reality Video C-SPAN.org
Asked to elaborate about the multiverse theory, or about any experimental proof, the professor would say "the math tells us so, and I believe the math." Faith in a new religion.
a. Dr. Berlinski points out the absurdity of using the new religion of 'science' in hypothetical mathematics, and using it to attack religion:
"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter five.
So.....how many scientists can dance on the head of a pin??
There could be an infinite number of universes. This is more speculative theory than a fact, but several branches of mathematics, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics have all come to similar conclusions: our universe is just one of many and we actually exist in a ‘multiverse’.
There are different ideas of how this could be, one being the concept of atoms only capable of being arranged in a finite number of ways in time and space, ultimately leading to the repetition of events and people.
Other theories propose bubble or parallel universes that hover just out of reach of the dimensions we experience. THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE.
Although these concepts seem like the far-fetched ideas of science-fiction, they are actually proving to be the most elegant solutions to problems thrown up by our discoveries of how the universe works.
I don't know why these possibilities scare you other than they contradict what your religion says. And if that's true, this is why people believe religion is anti science. Anything science that contradicts what religion says is challenged. But the fact is, no amount of science will ever prove god doesn't exist. It will only prove your religions are made up.
While a religious individual would look atthe fact that the parameters of the world are exactly what a Creator would have provided for us
Sure don't.Thank you.I have no doubt that there are many and fundamental reasons for you to be humble, fency.
Ironically, as I understand it, Christians are supposed to be humble also.
I don't see much of that around here.
.
Now...why would you go there?
Could it be to avoid this?
It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....
....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?
Someone may.
Why is this so important?
.
"Why is this so important?"
Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.
And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.
While a religious individual would look atthe fact that the parameters of the world are exactly what a Creator would have provided for us
Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?
For that matter, do the various religious beliefs that people hold agree on just what each religion's creator(s) did, in fact, provide?
Sure don't.Thank you.I have no doubt that there are many and fundamental reasons for you to be humble, fency.
Ironically, as I understand it, Christians are supposed to be humble also.
I don't see much of that around here.
.
Now...why would you go there?
Could it be to avoid this?
It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....
....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?
Someone may.
Why is this so important?
.
"Why is this so important?"
Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.
And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.
Perhaps it does suggest what you say, but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time, in the context of that theory; and considering we neither know every species on the planet now nor all those that have existed prior to now; and considering we cannot keep track of every place or every animal on the planet, it seems only a small suggestion.
While a religious individual would look atthe fact that the parameters of the world are exactly what a Creator would have provided for us
Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?
For that matter, do the various religious beliefs that people hold agree on just what each religion's creator(s) did, in fact, provide?
"Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"
I said nothing of the sort, Monty.
The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.
Scientists....whether religious or not.
a. Physicist Alan Lightman has written this:
"…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.
The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
b. "Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”...
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.” That is “a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.”
Why Some Scientists Embrace the ‘Multiverse’
Would you care to comment on any of those analyses?
Sure don't.Thank you.
Ironically, as I understand it, Christians are supposed to be humble also.
I don't see much of that around here.
.
Now...why would you go there?
Could it be to avoid this?
It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....
....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?
Someone may.
Why is this so important?
.
"Why is this so important?"
Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.
And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.
Perhaps it does suggest what you say, but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time, in the context of that theory; and considering we neither know every species on the planet now nor all those that have existed prior to now; and considering we cannot keep track of every place or every animal on the planet, it seems only a small suggestion.
"...but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time,..."
1. The less than 200 years is one factor.....combined with the factor of how many scientists are at work currently.
a. ...and the fact that one loses grants, status, and livelihood if one posits that Darwin was wrong.
2. Darwin said this:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”
3. This is the heart of Darwin's thesis:
. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
There are numerous examples which show the very opposite of Darwin's theory.
"The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74
The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.
So...if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.
This is not the case.
While a religious individual would look atthe fact that the parameters of the world are exactly what a Creator would have provided for us
Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?
For that matter, do the various religious beliefs that people hold agree on just what each religion's creator(s) did, in fact, provide?
"Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"
I said nothing of the sort, Monty.
The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.
Scientists....whether religious or not.
a. Physicist Alan Lightman has written this:
"…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.
The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
b. "Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”...
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.” That is “a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.”
Why Some Scientists Embrace the ‘Multiverse’
Would you care to comment on any of those analyses?
You 'said nothing of the sort'? I'm not sure how you can say that after reading your own quote. One must know what a creator would provide to say that something is exactly what a creator would provide.
I find it odd to look at life, which obviously already exists, and discuss how unlikely it is for life to arise. The universe is as it is. If it were different, life as we know it might not exist. Of course, if it were different, we have no idea whether some other form of life would have arisen. If an omnipotent creator is responsible for the universe, is there any reason to think such a being could not create a different kind of life in a universe that follows different rules?
I question the basis to calculate the odds of life arising without a creator, but whatever the odds may be, life is here.
Sure don't.Now...why would you go there?
Could it be to avoid this?
It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....
....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?
Someone may.
Why is this so important?
.
"Why is this so important?"
Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.
And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.
Perhaps it does suggest what you say, but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time, in the context of that theory; and considering we neither know every species on the planet now nor all those that have existed prior to now; and considering we cannot keep track of every place or every animal on the planet, it seems only a small suggestion.
"...but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time,..."
1. The less than 200 years is one factor.....combined with the factor of how many scientists are at work currently.
a. ...and the fact that one loses grants, status, and livelihood if one posits that Darwin was wrong.
2. Darwin said this:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”
3. This is the heart of Darwin's thesis:
. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
There are numerous examples which show the very opposite of Darwin's theory.
"The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74
The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.
So...if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.
This is not the case.
Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory? Evolutionary theory has changed over the years.
Sure don't.Now...why would you go there?
Could it be to avoid this?
It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....
....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?
Someone may.
Why is this so important?
.
"Why is this so important?"
Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.
And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.
Perhaps it does suggest what you say, but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time, in the context of that theory; and considering we neither know every species on the planet now nor all those that have existed prior to now; and considering we cannot keep track of every place or every animal on the planet, it seems only a small suggestion.
"...but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time,..."
1. The less than 200 years is one factor.....combined with the factor of how many scientists are at work currently.
a. ...and the fact that one loses grants, status, and livelihood if one posits that Darwin was wrong.
2. Darwin said this:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”
3. This is the heart of Darwin's thesis:
. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
There are numerous examples which show the very opposite of Darwin's theory.
"The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74
The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.
So...if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.
This is not the case.
Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory? Evolutionary theory has changed over the years.
Sure don't.
Someone may.
Why is this so important?
.
"Why is this so important?"
Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.
And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.
Perhaps it does suggest what you say, but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time, in the context of that theory; and considering we neither know every species on the planet now nor all those that have existed prior to now; and considering we cannot keep track of every place or every animal on the planet, it seems only a small suggestion.
"...but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time,..."
1. The less than 200 years is one factor.....combined with the factor of how many scientists are at work currently.
a. ...and the fact that one loses grants, status, and livelihood if one posits that Darwin was wrong.
2. Darwin said this:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”
3. This is the heart of Darwin's thesis:
. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
There are numerous examples which show the very opposite of Darwin's theory.
"The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74
The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.
So...if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.
This is not the case.
Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory? Evolutionary theory has changed over the years.
"Evolutionary theory has changed over the years."
Would you mind supporting your claim?
While a religious individual would look atthe fact that the parameters of the world are exactly what a Creator would have provided for us
Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?
For that matter, do the various religious beliefs that people hold agree on just what each religion's creator(s) did, in fact, provide?
"Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"
I said nothing of the sort, Monty.
The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.
Scientists....whether religious or not.
a. Physicist Alan Lightman has written this:
"…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.
The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
b. "Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”...
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.” That is “a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.”
Why Some Scientists Embrace the ‘Multiverse’
Would you care to comment on any of those analyses?
You 'said nothing of the sort'? I'm not sure how you can say that after reading your own quote. One must know what a creator would provide to say that something is exactly what a creator would provide.
I find it odd to look at life, which obviously already exists, and discuss how unlikely it is for life to arise. The universe is as it is. If it were different, life as we know it might not exist. Of course, if it were different, we have no idea whether some other form of life would have arisen. If an omnipotent creator is responsible for the universe, is there any reason to think such a being could not create a different kind of life in a universe that follows different rules?
I question the basis to calculate the odds of life arising without a creator, but whatever the odds may be, life is here.
Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"
I said nothing of the sort, Monty.
The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.
Scientists....whether religious or not.
The quotes are from scientists, speaking as exactly that.
"Why is this so important?"
Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.
And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.
Perhaps it does suggest what you say, but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time, in the context of that theory; and considering we neither know every species on the planet now nor all those that have existed prior to now; and considering we cannot keep track of every place or every animal on the planet, it seems only a small suggestion.
"...but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time,..."
1. The less than 200 years is one factor.....combined with the factor of how many scientists are at work currently.
a. ...and the fact that one loses grants, status, and livelihood if one posits that Darwin was wrong.
2. Darwin said this:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”
3. This is the heart of Darwin's thesis:
. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
There are numerous examples which show the very opposite of Darwin's theory.
"The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74
The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.
So...if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.
This is not the case.
Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory? Evolutionary theory has changed over the years.
"Evolutionary theory has changed over the years."
Would you mind supporting your claim?
I don't want to get into an in depth debate on evolution, but clearly we have knowledge of things related to evolution which were unavailable, perhaps unimagined, in Darwin's time. Our understanding of DNA, for example, was something Darwin did not have. As such, he could not take it into account in his theory.
Here, though, is a simple search which gives plenty of different sites to look at on the subject :
how evolutionary theory has changed since darwin at DuckDuckGo
Whether one believes in evolutionary theory or not, it clearly is not exactly the same as what Darwin proposed.
While a religious individual would look atthe fact that the parameters of the world are exactly what a Creator would have provided for us
Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?
For that matter, do the various religious beliefs that people hold agree on just what each religion's creator(s) did, in fact, provide?
"Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"
I said nothing of the sort, Monty.
The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.
Scientists....whether religious or not.
a. Physicist Alan Lightman has written this:
"…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.
The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
b. "Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”...
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.” That is “a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.”
Why Some Scientists Embrace the ‘Multiverse’
Would you care to comment on any of those analyses?
You 'said nothing of the sort'? I'm not sure how you can say that after reading your own quote. One must know what a creator would provide to say that something is exactly what a creator would provide.
I find it odd to look at life, which obviously already exists, and discuss how unlikely it is for life to arise. The universe is as it is. If it were different, life as we know it might not exist. Of course, if it were different, we have no idea whether some other form of life would have arisen. If an omnipotent creator is responsible for the universe, is there any reason to think such a being could not create a different kind of life in a universe that follows different rules?
I question the basis to calculate the odds of life arising without a creator, but whatever the odds may be, life is here.
Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"
I said nothing of the sort, Monty.
The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.
Scientists....whether religious or not.
The quotes are from scientists, speaking as exactly that.
Most of the observable universe is actually antithetical to life as we know it.
Sure don't.
Someone may.
Why is this so important?
.
"Why is this so important?"
Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.
And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.
Perhaps it does suggest what you say, but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time, in the context of that theory; and considering we neither know every species on the planet now nor all those that have existed prior to now; and considering we cannot keep track of every place or every animal on the planet, it seems only a small suggestion.
"...but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time,..."
1. The less than 200 years is one factor.....combined with the factor of how many scientists are at work currently.
a. ...and the fact that one loses grants, status, and livelihood if one posits that Darwin was wrong.
2. Darwin said this:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”
3. This is the heart of Darwin's thesis:
. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
There are numerous examples which show the very opposite of Darwin's theory.
"The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74
The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.
So...if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.
This is not the case.
Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory? Evolutionary theory has changed over the years.
"Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory? Evolutionary theory has changed over the years."
Of course they do.
1. Infectees of public school education come away with the belief that Darwin's theory is a law of some sort.
2. While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards.Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T.Texas education board debates teaching of evolution.Dallas Morning News,January 21, 2009....
a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."
b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of indoctrination that critics of the Left have been railing about.
One would hope that the intelligent observer would recognize these problems with Darwinian theory......and begin to wonder why it is pushed so fervently.
Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?
For that matter, do the various religious beliefs that people hold agree on just what each religion's creator(s) did, in fact, provide?
"Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"
I said nothing of the sort, Monty.
The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.
Scientists....whether religious or not.
a. Physicist Alan Lightman has written this:
"…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.
The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
b. "Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”...
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.” That is “a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.”
Why Some Scientists Embrace the ‘Multiverse’
Would you care to comment on any of those analyses?
You 'said nothing of the sort'? I'm not sure how you can say that after reading your own quote. One must know what a creator would provide to say that something is exactly what a creator would provide.
I find it odd to look at life, which obviously already exists, and discuss how unlikely it is for life to arise. The universe is as it is. If it were different, life as we know it might not exist. Of course, if it were different, we have no idea whether some other form of life would have arisen. If an omnipotent creator is responsible for the universe, is there any reason to think such a being could not create a different kind of life in a universe that follows different rules?
I question the basis to calculate the odds of life arising without a creator, but whatever the odds may be, life is here.
Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"
I said nothing of the sort, Monty.
The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.
Scientists....whether religious or not.
The quotes are from scientists, speaking as exactly that.
Most of the observable universe is actually antithetical to life as we know it.
What does this post of yours have to do with anything????
