Are you saying Physics is based on random patterns? I know that randomness as understood today is not implied to be 'guided'- GeoffP and I are discussing the concept from my perspective. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, he did not. Stop tilting at windmills and throwing straw men into your posts. Your little perspective is irrelevant. Try viewing accurate models instead and examining them constantly to improve accuracy. You may just find them to be less biased and more reliable than your opinions or perspectives.
*** MOD NOTE *** Not to be heavy-handed but randomness (guided or not, implied or not) is a different topic and hardly suited for Human Sciences. Unless you want to discuss it as a perspective. I'm not shutting it down per se, but I'd rather you stuck to the topic and maybe take the random discussion (heh, joke!) to a new thread if it's going to persist. Thanks. PS note to GeoffP, I'm sticking with wussy blue despite your dislike (or maybe because of it).
You're a mod- Didn't know that, anyways yeah I agree its off topic- sorry about that.... Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
:spank: Orf wiv 'is 'ead!! Sorry, too much Alice in Wonderland. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No prob, it's just that I foresee that discussion going on for a while. It's part and parcel of Sci for topics to drift, but randomness has already had a thread of its own (yours?) and could well take up another.
OK, the date for the OP is 01-02-08. I read the article and there is a problem: "In the new FASEB poll, researchers asked half of the respondents about their views on the evolution of "all living things" and found that 61 percent accepted that 'all living things have evolved over time.' " That's not really accepting/believing in the Theory of Evolution. This article, dated 08-10-06, says barely 40% of Americans believe in the Theory of Evolution. The US ranked next to last. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html "People in the United States are much less likely to accept Darwin's idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor than adults in other Western nations, a number of surveys show. " "In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea." "But, the authors say, studies in the U.S. suggest substantial numbers of American adults are confused about some core ideas related to 20th- and 21st-century biology. The researchers cite a 2005 study finding that 78 percent of adults agreed that plants and animals had evolved from other organisms. In the same study, 62 percent also believed that God created humans without any evolutionary development. Fewer than half of American adults can provide a minimal definition of DNA, the authors add. " I really doubt the number would jump 20 points in just 2 years. And, I'm pretty sure (unfortunately) that the NG article is dead on accurate.
From my perspective I have found a contradiction. In the "term" creationism it mentions "life" in a general sense, and then it proceeds to mention a specific life, such as humanity. If the term "creationism" require humanity to fulfill it's meaning, then it's an misleading definition. There's still the potentiality that somewhere else in the universe there's bipedal intelligent entities that could have been created by a creator, but lack being the species of human. Does that mean they can't use the term "creationism" because their simply not human? Creationism objectively is the belief that God created life and the universe. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that your mainstream religious Gods act like a child. The Creator Poofing things into reality type of logic, the bible and it's description of the creator, etc. If anyone believe in the creator, there's no choice, but to accept that it's omnipresent. Your analogous sentence didn't make any sense. I can assure you I'm not. There's something I'm studying as of now, and one person is bound to commit and have committed the act I'm studying.
Wrong: as has been explained the term "Creationism" has been co-opted for the meaning given. As I said: if you're going use a definition other than the extant (accepted one) then you will have to define it. That's your personal definition. You misunderstand the question: A) "mainstream conception of the creator is quite primitive" - what is that based on? Compared to what? B) "it will remain primitive for eons in humanity future until a great change come about" - what is that based on? And how are they misconceptions? It's okay for you to claim this but if you can't provide anything to back it up then it's not worth you taking the effort to write it down. So what? It doesn't alter the fact that it's an unsubstantiated statement from you. On the contrary, Neverfly's analogy made as much sense as "god" does. So far you are. All you've done is make claims, make ad-homs (*** MOD NOTE *** - Don't) and fail to provide any substantiation. And? What "act" are you studying?
