Re: Finding useful functions- part 1
From: JPL Verhey (matterDELminds_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/01/04
- Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- In reply to: Phil Sherrod: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- Next in thread: Stargazer: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:01:08 +0100
"Phil Sherrod" <phil.sherrod@REMOVETHISsandh.com> wrote in message
news:3t-dnVHnwtUh9BvcRVn-uw@giganews.com...
>
> On 29-Oct-2004, "Stephen Harris" <cyberguard1048-usenet@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, the general umbrella of these forums is cognitive science.
>> So my post doesn't entertain a non-scientific explanation --> by God
>> or
>> Design.
>
> I don't recall mentioning God or religion in any of my messages. If I
> did,
> please quote the section.
>
> Regarding Design, it is hard for anyone with a rational mind to deny
> the
> remarkable order and "design" of the universe and living creatures.
> We can
> argue about the origin of this design, but the natural order is so far
> from
> random that you have to postulate either a designer or a natural
> process
> that operated contrary to entropy to produce the universe we live in.
> I'm
> not trying to convince you that the designer was God, but I do argue
> that is
> difficult to hold the position that the universe as we know it is
> simply the
> product of random chance.
>
>> Science does not claim that the universe is not have levels of what
>> we perceive to be organizational. But that there is no initial
>> purpose
>> that led to life. Before there was life, elements had to created in
>> stars
>> that are essential to life. Science says there was no guiding hand to
>> that, it just happened. And it is in that sense I use the word
>> random.
>
> There are hundreds of known physical constants in the universe (speed
> of
> light, mass of electron, gravitational constant, nuclear forces, etc.)
> that
> must have precisely the values they have for the universe to exist as
> we
> know it; if you make even slight changes to any of them, the universe
> would
> be wildly different. It sure is a coincidence that all of them fell
> into
> place through random chance.
>
>> Evolution is a theory, which means it is not a proven fact. Fossils
>> are a
>> matter of fact, but the interpretation of how they got there is not a
>> fact
>> and I don't claim that. I do claim that if you post on a scientific
>> forum
>> then
>> you use the cause and effect of science which does not admit God as a
>> cause
>
> I never stated that life was created by God (but I don't argue against
> it
> either). My point was that as deeper understanding is gained of the
> incredible complexity of the fundamental life processes, it becomes
> increasingly difficult to explain it through random events and
> incremental
> Darwinian evolutionary theory. Too many simultaneous, interacting
> processes
> have to get going at the same time to make a self-replicating organism
> that
> can pass on genetic information and begin a na turalselectioncycle.
> Getting from minerals in water to DNA/RNA and all of the machinery
> necessary
> for replication is an unexplained phenomenon. If you want to accept
> that it
> happened on faith, that's fine; but it is not science.
I agree with the general notion of what you say, but like to add that
perhaps the way organic life forms emerged and evolved on earth was not
less a miracle than the emergence of protons and neutrons in the early
universe. In fact, without protons and neutrons organic life would not
be possible and be what it is.
- Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- In reply to: Phil Sherrod: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- Next in thread: Stargazer: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
