Biologists know what life needs and that is why they say that all of life needs are fully satisfied by just-so nature of its parts, whether physical, chemical, or biochemical. Respiration is, of course, a key part. Hold your breath for some minutes and experience first-hand whether you need...
Mere descriptions? Throw yourself out of an airplane without a parachute and experience first hand the consequence of the law of gravity.:eek: May you land unscathed and give a description of its reality.
The problem is yours because you don't distinguish between the messenger and the message. I am just a messenger. The message, based on recent discoveries in the natural sciences, is that the Universe is designed to harbor life and the goal of life is to evolve homo sapiens; that we are not here...
I agree that it's very anthropocentric but that is what is asserted by those who advocate the Anthropic Principle as does Denton:
"...science has revealed a universe stamped in every corner, riven in every tiny detail, with an overwhelmingly and all pervasive biocentric and anthropocentric...
natural: existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.
A law exists in Nature, of course. However, if it is also "formed" by Nature then Nature becomes the designer of her own laws; and if she can design/form her own laws she must be a real person with individual...
Good question. As strange as it may seem, however, scientists assert that a designer had no choice but to design everything precisely "as is" or there would not be a Universe with life; that s/he was constrained by the very requirement of the objective: life on a planet that would evolve into...
Of course I agree but the statement begs the question: Where did natural laws come from? Did Nature make her own laws? When we look at a law in the human arena we say it was made/passed by people/legislators. Imo, the same line of reasoning applies to natural laws: Unless Nature made her own...
Here are two recent discoveries as food for discussion:
From cosmology - The constants of Nature
"The sizes of stars and planets, and even people, are neither random nor the result of any Drawinian selection process from a myriad possibilities. Those and other gross features of the Universe...
I did not try to deceive anyone; in everything I wrote I was utterly sincere: that is the way of my Avatar. Carelessly, I took the info on the paper at face value and I was wrong. I accept my mistake. However, if you reject the other proof for one mistake you are throwing away the baby with the...
You re-responded to what? I looked up re-respond in the dictionary but could not find it. Anyway, I am leaving the forum at least for a while so this is my last post to you.
There is no experimental evidence of Darwinian evolution either yet it's scientific dogma. If you consider books that, except for the conclusion, could be textbooks in universities as pop-sci then I see no reason to continue this discussion.
These scientists did not do the research and discover facts to prove ID; however, given the new facts, if they were to be intellectually honest they had to conclude that what they had discovered must have been designed. From quantum physics "the role of the observer); from cosmology "the...