Climate Change Robs Family Of Life...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Darwin's Doubt, Intelligent Design And Evolution.
Has anyone watched this film, an interview with Stephen Meyer?
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, I've got back to Meyer,Khandro, and have just (this morning) received the Pre-Cambrian Explosion (subtitled "The Construction of Animal Diversity".
Odd to me (obviously not to Ms Armstrong) to see Jeremiah's name included with the other three. "A voice is heard in Ramah ... Rachel weeping for her children" reads fine as literature; but Jeremiah, or any other OT prophet contributing usefully to moral discourse?
Odd to me (obviously not to Ms Armstrong) to see Jeremiah's name included with the other three. "A voice is heard in Ramah ... Rachel weeping for her children" reads fine as literature; but Jeremiah, or any other OT prophet contributing usefully to moral discourse?
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
I know you are still smarting from your 40 guinea purchases, this wont hurt,
and is worth it for the references alone. (Just checked; there's 'Homer', but no 'Hume' though.)
I know you are still smarting from your 40 guinea purchases, this wont hurt,
and is worth it for the references alone. (Just checked; there's 'Homer', but no 'Hume' though.)
/So couldn't the 'life-force' the 'will' to live, to survive and multiply have been and still is being introduced into inanimate matter from an external 'invisible' power?/
I think you will find that the expression 'life force' is a figure of speech. I don't think anyone seriously considers that a 'life force' drifts around the cosmos, inhabiting inanimate objects and bringing them to life. Perhaps a 'Star Wars' storyline author mght have entertained the idea..
I think you will find that the expression 'life force' is a figure of speech. I don't think anyone seriously considers that a 'life force' drifts around the cosmos, inhabiting inanimate objects and bringing them to life. Perhaps a 'Star Wars' storyline author mght have entertained the idea..
// //I don't think anyone seriously considers that a 'life force' drifts around the cosmos, inhabiting inanimate objects and bringing them to life//
Well I most certainly do, though not precisely in those words. Now please give us your alternative proposal. //
Ah, the old 'alternative' ploy...My 'alternative' to the above is that there is no 'life force', since Darwin's theory does a pretty good job of explaining what we see and there is no evidence that a 'life force'(somewhat lacking a definition) exists.
Well I most certainly do, though not precisely in those words. Now please give us your alternative proposal. //
Ah, the old 'alternative' ploy...My 'alternative' to the above is that there is no 'life force', since Darwin's theory does a pretty good job of explaining what we see and there is no evidence that a 'life force'(somewhat lacking a definition) exists.
jomifl; // Darwin's theory does a pretty good job of explaining what we see//
But does it though?... I have it on good authority (a Professor of Biochemistry) that the Darwinian theory fails to account for the molecular basis of life and of the ' Complete absence in the professional scientific literature of any detailed models by which complex biochemical systems could have been produced. In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed.
No one at Harvard or any other university, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner - no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion'.
But does it though?... I have it on good authority (a Professor of Biochemistry) that the Darwinian theory fails to account for the molecular basis of life and of the ' Complete absence in the professional scientific literature of any detailed models by which complex biochemical systems could have been produced. In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed.
No one at Harvard or any other university, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner - no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion'.
The subject of this thread seems to have changed somewhat.
I suspect "drifts around the cosmos, inhabiting" whilst being a denigrating way to describe it, is something that is basis most the the world's population would go along with, since most believe in a religion and it is those who do not who are in the minority.
It is down to whether one believes sentient life is merely an evolved emergent effect of a brain's neurons, that there is no more, or whether one believe in a spiritual realm which one might consider our default place to exist. "Where a soul of some sort finds themselves after bodily death and the casting off of a form of fleshy overcoat.
But that is surely a different discussion to whether Darwin was right or whether Meyer makes any valid points ?
I suspect "drifts around the cosmos, inhabiting" whilst being a denigrating way to describe it, is something that is basis most the the world's population would go along with, since most believe in a religion and it is those who do not who are in the minority.
It is down to whether one believes sentient life is merely an evolved emergent effect of a brain's neurons, that there is no more, or whether one believe in a spiritual realm which one might consider our default place to exist. "Where a soul of some sort finds themselves after bodily death and the casting off of a form of fleshy overcoat.
But that is surely a different discussion to whether Darwin was right or whether Meyer makes any valid points ?
Darwin's theory does not have to explain every last detail to be convincing. If we waited for every last detail to be explained we would have to wait an eternity. Science deals with principles not unnecessary details.
/ In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed. /
Rubbish, science has been steadily discovering how cells work from the chemical processes such as the Krebs cycle to the structure of organelles. Most scientists would agree that science doesn't know everything and also that it never will know everything, however the alternative it to remain in total ignorance and keep on praying.
Rather than being so negative about the progress that science has made perhaps you would care to let us know how your alternative explanation works, rather than offering vague disconnecting suggestions and leaving us to fill in the gaps.
The best test of whether you understand something is to try to explain it to someone else.
/ In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed. /
Rubbish, science has been steadily discovering how cells work from the chemical processes such as the Krebs cycle to the structure of organelles. Most scientists would agree that science doesn't know everything and also that it never will know everything, however the alternative it to remain in total ignorance and keep on praying.
Rather than being so negative about the progress that science has made perhaps you would care to let us know how your alternative explanation works, rather than offering vague disconnecting suggestions and leaving us to fill in the gaps.
The best test of whether you understand something is to try to explain it to someone else.
j. //science has been steadily discovering how cells work //
Right, but what is at question is how they began to work originally from an inorganic state. It's like a car in which the engine is running but it doesn't appear to have a starter motor.
I don't have an explanation other than' design needs designing, ergo 'designer'.
Regarding life force and will to survive, the question for me isn't just 'how ?' but also 'why?'
Many moons ago I posed a question on here after trapping my hand and ending up with a wound which was a combination of cut, bruise and loss of skin. All that could be done was to clean it and watch and wait as the blood stopped and a scab formed to protect the wound, the bruise went away and then the skin grew back, without any human intervention possible; an every day event but a really staggeringly complex process. Though we may have some notion of how such a thing happens, the question which fascinates me is WHY does it happen at all?
What is the wondrous force behind such a process?
Right, but what is at question is how they began to work originally from an inorganic state. It's like a car in which the engine is running but it doesn't appear to have a starter motor.
I don't have an explanation other than' design needs designing, ergo 'designer'.
Regarding life force and will to survive, the question for me isn't just 'how ?' but also 'why?'
Many moons ago I posed a question on here after trapping my hand and ending up with a wound which was a combination of cut, bruise and loss of skin. All that could be done was to clean it and watch and wait as the blood stopped and a scab formed to protect the wound, the bruise went away and then the skin grew back, without any human intervention possible; an every day event but a really staggeringly complex process. Though we may have some notion of how such a thing happens, the question which fascinates me is WHY does it happen at all?
What is the wondrous force behind such a process?
@Khandro
//We have at the moment a clear example of this 'will' in the ebola virus which seems to have a frightening (for us) pernicious 'intelligent' desire to survive. //
If you put acid on a piece of carbonate rock, they react and the rock fizzes with activity.
In the case of ebola, it is the rock and we are the acid making it fizz.
It is just an inert chemical but, when brought into contact with cells which enable it to do the one thing it is capable of - reproducing - then it does it. However, it is automatic; machine-like.
Naming one's car and imbueing it with all kinds of human characteristics is thought rather whimsical and most of us happily tolerate people who do that but you are straying into whimsy with other people's field of interest, here.
Would you like scientists to stray into the area of philosophy and/or faith and go so far as causing offence to those more versed in these things than they?
//We have at the moment a clear example of this 'will' in the ebola virus which seems to have a frightening (for us) pernicious 'intelligent' desire to survive. //
If you put acid on a piece of carbonate rock, they react and the rock fizzes with activity.
In the case of ebola, it is the rock and we are the acid making it fizz.
It is just an inert chemical but, when brought into contact with cells which enable it to do the one thing it is capable of - reproducing - then it does it. However, it is automatic; machine-like.
Naming one's car and imbueing it with all kinds of human characteristics is thought rather whimsical and most of us happily tolerate people who do that but you are straying into whimsy with other people's field of interest, here.
Would you like scientists to stray into the area of philosophy and/or faith and go so far as causing offence to those more versed in these things than they?
Hypo, (and now jomifl too); A touch of hubris here. What you are saying is that though you can't answer the questions, I am unqualified to ask them!
O.G. I can't accept your theory about wounds which appears to be that the first wounded creatures died off until by fortuitous accident one came along with congealable blood.
O.G. I can't accept your theory about wounds which appears to be that the first wounded creatures died off until by fortuitous accident one came along with congealable blood.
Khandro,the hubris bit works the other way. You ask question on a subject about which you appear to know very little and then dismiss the answers given by people who not only have qualifications but have also had lifelong careers in the subject. I'm not sure that your 'belief' mindset allows you to give the answers the consideration they deserve. It may have passed your notice that most of the serious and considered answers you get are in general agreement within themselves because there are no paradoxes in the theory of evolution, it is remarkably consistent.
Latest Posts
Music3 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Family & Relationships10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News38 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.