Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by mathman, Nov 24, 2005.
Which god? Atun? Re? Baal? Quetzacoatl? Rael?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes. They are all the God that designed everything.
Who designed the god?
Glad you asked.
We should call our god "BET" which short for Buffy's Extra Terrestrials. They inoculated the Earth with slime about 2 billions years ago. The first higher life forms to evolve from this slime were the ancestors of the deep sea worms now found only near a few deep ocean sulfur/ methane vents, but back a million years, when the atmosphere was mainly H2O steam, and the crustial plates were more active, their range was more global.
Back about 2.5 billion years ago when it was too dangerous to cool and colonize Earth, because large meteor impacts were more common, the BETs made Buffy in a relatively safe zone. Fact that Buffy gets little solar energy at 57 AUs from sun, BETs considered to be an asset - their fusion reactors waste heat radiators worked better, but normally they point away from the sun so we would not have detected the strong IR signature from that radiator, even if all the BETs had not died long ago and were nice enough to shut reactor down first. - Unlike those jerks who lived on the other planet they smeared with slime - a planet we now call the asteroid belt.
Buffy is no longer in its original perfectly circular orbit. (Apogee = 62AU & perigee = 52AU now.) but it still has the 47-degree inclination to the ecliptic.
You may have heard that "God is dead", and I think that the inhabitants of Buffy did die about half a billion years ago, but now that we have found their home and no doubt will try to visit it soon to learn what knowledge treasures they left for us to find, I think that had they lived, they would be proud of their creation, man.
All bow down and hail dead BET. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Also please send me you contribution for the BET memorial ASAP.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What are you, Mormon?
No, a BETite.
Are they trying to prevert BET's truths?
The United States Supreme Court has ruled today that "Intelligent Design is not really a science, but is a religion."
The United States Supreme Court has reuled today that Intelligent Design cannot be taught in the classroom. It is a religous belief that should be taught in a church.
Sibce this thread is under a "Scientific" forum called "Biology and Genetics," according to the United States Supreme Court ruling, this forum must cease and desist.
Any furhter postings advocating, promoting, or trying to teach Intelligent Design on this Scientific learning forum are now in violation of the Federal Law.
Very amusing Vallich. On two levels.
First, it is a nice tongue in cheek put down of Intelligent Design.
Second, even when you are being humorous, you can't resist getting it wrong. The US Supreme Court did not reach any decision. A single judge in Pennsylvania handed down the decision you have lampooned.
the above says it all. i thought you and valich already settled this with your little shootout.
I don't know about that, but Mormon's believe that God lives on another planet and that we too may become gods and seed other planets.
Moreover, this is not a public school. Though there are some apparent third-graders posting here. One of them will undoubtedly be tempted to say something like, "yeah, including you!"
yeah, i .. . oops
Oh, right, so ci7tyi or whatever is yorda? my apologies. I have been somewhat interested in other stuff, so have missed the name changes this year.
Invert, I know your always up for a fight, thats why I directed he/ she/ it/ them in your direction.
And if you want a fight, I have a nice shiny new side sword that I need some practise with.
Yay! Great news from the Kitzmiller case.
Supreme Court ruling was that Creationism is religion and not science. Fed. judge in Pa. ruled ID is Creationism in disguise.
And not very well disguised.
a stalking we will go, a stalking we will go, hi ho the dairyo a stalking we will go.
Wouldn't that criterium render any theory invalid? It is the nature of that explanation which causes trouble. Do we accept the unknown or not? I have asked several times here and irl what cause magnetism. Apparently, it's a mystery. The "force" is still as magical as when it was first discovered. Does this mean that theories of magnetism are wrong? In a sense yes. They are only an aproximation of what it is. I believe the closer it gets, the more it 'explains' - explaining in the sense of understanding what is going on, and making the observed effect expected, unavoidable. The origin of life as it is seen now, is not what I call expected. But it should be. Yet I'm not worried, we've only been doing science for a very short time.
To get back to the nature of the explanation. I think this is personal also. The more we know (in a scientific way), the more we accept in our minds as possibilities that are within the "norm". This is a common discussion - mostly termd "open minded". In that sense, I tend to be open minded, because it is a fact that our scope of what we believe possible and normal will only but widen. That's not the same as to believe anything. I just consider to give it a n honest chance.
Because the indirect proof of a totally unknown mechanism is just anything we just arbitrarily attribute to it, what we are trying to explain.
I'd say, give them a chance to evolve and to get firm grip away from religeous chains from the (recent) past.
Wrong. THe concept of irreducible complexity is not an analogy. It is deduced by observation. Show that one of the parts of such a system is really not needed and it is disproved. On the other hand, your analogy is shallow and does not refute anything. Nature is cruel and deadly. I doubt there is any time for testing your material, so to speak. I read a lenghtly reply to Behe once (can't remember why) and I wasn't convinced at all. I think the guy used the example of the mouse trap (why not use a real example?). Behe's response crushed him easily. Irreducible complexity is a real problem for evolution. It has nothing to do with the conclusions that Behe attached to it (ID, creationism).
Prototypes have nothing to do with this. They will have all the vital parts needed to make it function. A prototype motor, for example, will need to be tested properly. Materials may need to changed, size of parts, etc. The analogy is wrong again IMO.
I don't know how it happens (happened) in nature. Maybe evolution is partly conscious driven.
Depends. Maybe this magical killing thing is making more victings. Then I bet you will not pay attention to a doctor with his shortminded guessings Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked on many occasions and isn't a problem for evolution at all. Indeed, its a problem for so-called 'intelligent' design, since it simply doesn't pan out.
By John Allen Paulos
The theory of intelligent design, the purportedly more scientific descendant of creation science, rejects Darwin's theory of evolution as being unable to explain the complexity of life. How, ask its supporters, can biological phenomena such as the clotting of blood have arisen just by chance? A key supporter likens the "irreducible complexity" of such phenomena to the irreducible complexity of a mousetrap. If one piece is missing - spring, metal platform or board - it is useless. The implicit suggestion is that all the parts of a mousetrap would have had to come into being at once, an impossibility unless there were an intelligent designer. Design proponents argue that what's true for the mousetrap is all the more true for complex biological phenomena. If any of the 20 or so proteins involved in blood clotting is absent, clotting doesn't occur. So, the creationist argument goes, these proteins must have all been brought into being at once by a designer. But the theory of evolution does explain the evolution of complex biological organisms and phenomena, and the argument from design, which dates from the 18th century, has been decisively refuted. Rehashing the refutation is not my goal. Those who reject evolution are usually immune to such arguments.
To Read More of This Article Visit: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/
That wasn't the article I had read. Besides, this one is really shallow.
Isn't the discussion about the ORIGIN of complex systems? He misses the entire point with his false analogy.
If it has been so easily refuted, then link to something more decent (in quantity and quality).
Separate names with a comma.