I don't know that it is dishonest and taking a position based on what you perceive is not intentional dishonesty and just a foible of human existence.
I lean to the idea that the laws have always existed and are a force we can not understand and may never understand because our intelligence and...
I do not tie myself to any religious beliefs or scientific theories.
There are laws in the universe that do not change. Energy can not be created or destroyed. All energy came from the same source and will eventually return to that source. Our understanding of the laws is highly limited by our...
The problem I see is you are trying to relate what Kaku said to existing religious beliefs because he used the term "God". I can understand that but I believe a better term for what he is describing is the laws or mathematics or music that exists in the background that is in control of...
Man claims intelligence and relates everything to their own perceptions and existence. We know that is extremely limited and full of fallacies. My best way of describing it would be intelligence=truth. It does not need man to interpret it. It simply is. As Dr. Kaku said "The mind of God, we...
Pantheism in my perspective is still giving human like attributes and thought processes to a creator. That is creating God in man's image.
What Dr. Kaku has expressed in my opinion is a much higher intelligence than we with our limited intelligence that tries to relate everything to man can...
I would say Dr. Kaku is correct and the logical fallacy lays on the other side:
Premise: Nothing existed before the big bang.
Finding: We have laws of science that must have been created with the bang
Conclusion: There was no creator
The fallacy: the big bang could not have occurred without...
I have to say I was over-joyed to read Dr. Kaku's article as I have been trying (unsuccessfully for the most part) to expand our idea of what God is from the general religious beliefs to a science based perspective that revolves around the "laws of science" that had to exist before the creation...
I would not describe that as Panthiest. Dr. Kaku and I share a similar perspective “To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
I have described these "Science Laws" in other posts as being "God"...
Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York (CUNY) and co-founder of String Field Theory, says theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence.
After analyzing the behavior...
Not according to the definition and the fact that they can breed with other bears makes them a different breed of the bear species.
That is a hybrid as I already explained. Not a new species and is a subspecies of the bear species.
Grizzly–polar bear hybrid...
You are ignoring the definition and making up your own:
spe·ci·a·tion: the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological,anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.
We have many breeds of dogs all the...
". This clearly falsifies your idea that species is defined as reproductive isolated organisms."
No- hybridization is NOT speciation.
I provided you the links showing that distinction.
spe·ci·a·tion: the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological,anatomical, or...
So far you have claimed a link that did not support what you said and then tried to claim "rates" for human reproduction proved why speciation was not observed while completely ignoring the millions of organisms that preceded man that we do not know their reproduction rates and you have refused...
" and it showed a normal chromosomal complement in the fetus."
This substantiates what I said in my OP that these are not a new species and the genetic anomaly is reabsorbed back into the original gene pool and the characteristic is either eliminated or the off spring dies. Maintaining the gene...
"If they purr forms continue to remain separate and distinct in terms of morphology and behavior"
No- that is a description of hybridization not speciation.
The links are in my OP had you bothered to read them before posting.
Are you claiming to not be a Lay person because so far your ideas...
"Now, all 99.9999% of species have 11110000, except two."
You have examined the millions of species that existed and died in mass extinctions before man ever existed to know this?
"Either a creator intentionally gave us identical damaged genes"
Are you sure they are damaged or just your...
Here again you are trying to analyze me which is not the subject of this discussion.
"But, you can correct me on this. Are you in support of speciation, even without evidence to convince you?"
I am open minded enough to question the current theory and see if a more reasonable answer exists...
That again is an assumption. You are assuming that because a banana has 50% of the same DNA as a human they must be an ancestor.
DNA is common to all living organisms but is also specific to that organism. There is no evidence those come from the same source unless you are convinced abiogenesis...