Our stuff is generally more expensive. Relatively small market in an isolated part of the world. There is a price to pay for living in paradise.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
Our stuff is generally more expensive. Relatively small market in an isolated part of the world. There is a price to pay for living in paradise.
Audie
Veteran Member
S' pore sure is pricey
We have them here too, they're about the most wide spread raptor species around the world.
No, that is far off to be real. You need to take a hard look at what it means to be random. ALL outcomes of cause and effect events in nature are fractal within the range of possible outcomes determined by the laws o Nature. Just a brief google search turned up many references that describe the fractal nature of events in nature. I disagree with some of the language in this reference, but other than that it addresses the issue. It is best to read the whole thing. Nothing new here.
Read James Gleick book Chaos: Making an New Science,
Fractal Evolution
Fractal Evolution
Copyright 1995 - Leading Edge Research Group
Copyright 1995 - Leading Edge Research Group
"A decade after Mandelbrot published his physiological speculations, some theoretical biologists began to find fractal organization controlling structures all through the body. The standard 'exponential' description of a bronchial branching proved to be quite wrong; a fractal description turned out to fit the data...." --James Gleick
In the view of the Darwinists, the endlessly exquisite designs of nature are the result of an interplay of two factors--random genetic mutation and Natural Selection. Genetic mutation proposes, Natural Selection disposes.
The question of "design" in nature was one that troubled Charles Darwin all his professional life. In the year following the publication of the Origin, he writes to Asa Gray: "I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of design."
Darwinist Ernst Mayr, for one, is well aware of the design dilemma. "No consequence of Darwin's theory of natural selection was a source of greater dismay to his opponents than the elimination of design from nature. Those who studied the countless superb adaptations of animals and plants had been most gratified by the explanation that such perfection was clearly the result of design by the maker of this world." In fact, Darwin did not eliminate design from nature, as he himself indicates in his letter to Gray. Darwin and his followers succeeded only in challenging the traditional idea that the source of all design is God.
After citing many examples of fantastic design in nature, Mayr goes on to say, "But when we ask how this perfection is brought about, we seem to find only arbitrariness, planlessness, randomness, and accident...." If Mayr and his fellow Darwinists find in nature only "arbitrariness, planlessness, randomness, and accident" that is a reflection on their ability, not on the capability of nature.
Today, any graduate student asked to develop a paper on the subject of design in nature would invariably wind up looking into fractal geometry and mathematics. Fractal geometry, as its name implies, is a geometry focusing on the description of geometrical structures, and structuring, in fract[ion]al space.
Until 1975, we didn't have a fractal geometry. Our only geometry was the familiar Euclidean geometry, which goes back over two thousand years. The Elements of Euclid (circa 300 B.C.) summarized in thirteen volumes the mathematical knowledge of ancient Greece. Up into our own century, Euclid's books of geometry were taken as the final, authoritative word on the subject. Euclidean geometry deals with whole rather than fractional realities. Plane geometry concerns planar (one- and two-dimensional) structures, and solid geometry describes volumetric (three-dimensional) structures.
"New geometry's always begin," writes James Gleick, "when someone changes a fundamental rule." Fundamental supposition would be a better term than rule. Gleick continues: "Suppose space can be curved instead of flat, a geometer says, and the result is a weird curved parody of Euclid that provides precisely the right framework for the general theory of relativity. Suppose space can have four dimensions, or five, or six. Suppose the number expressing dimension can be a fraction.... suppose shapes are defined, not by solving an equation once, but by iterating it [repeating it] in a feedback loop."
French mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot made a number of the above suppositions, and the result was the birth in 1975 of "fractal" (fractional) geometry and mathematics (Les Objets Fractal). The original stimulus behind Mandelbrot's work was an interest in irregular (seemingly "chaotic") patterns. Cotton prices over a long period of time, frequency of earthquakes, flooding conditions.... all seemed to occur with a regular irregularity. What was the principle of order within the chaos?
Mandelbrot's "studies of irregular patterns," Gleick indicates, "and his exploration of infinitely complex shapes had an intellectual intersection: a quality of self-similarity. Above all, fractal meant self-similar."
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I doubt highly on a percentage basis that you will agree -- but the more I learn about biochemical processes, the more astounding the world of life becomes, to me. It is not just remarkable but frankly -- beyond human understanding. If you think it is within the realm of human comprehension, including the likes of the "big bang," all I can say is "see ya."
and -- have a good one.
I doubt highly on a percentage basis that you will agree -- but the more I learn about biochemical processes, the more astounding the world of life becomes, to me. It is not just remarkable but frankly -- beyond human understanding. If you think it is within the realm of human comprehension, including the likes of the "big bang," all I can say is "see ya."
You didn't give any evidence.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The evidence is what is life and what is considered not life. Most of us recognize what's alive and what is not alive. Based on these discussions right now I more than ever recognize that life on earth dd not evolve as the standard scientific evaluation goes. You may think so, and I understand, but again -- while some may pick pieces of fossils and figure as well that fish have eyes and humans have eyes, these do not mean humans evolved from fish and their intermediaries.
Your evidence makes no sense. You're just stating an opinion. Saying what you feel is wrong with ToE is not evidence.
And nobody ever said humans evolved from fish because of eyes.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is not evidence in the sciences. That is no evidence if one is arguing logically. It is merely an unsupported claim.
Why are you afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence and why?
The possible range of color may be quit variable in some species, but the possible range mutations are predictable, The various colors do not go beyond the possible range of colors found in any one species. In most species the possible range of colors is limited do to 'natural selection.' Also many animals including some birds have a range of possible color combinations in the genetics without mutations. An example of this is domestic dogs.
So circular reasoning it bites you in the butt. You never provide any references to support your assertions and speculation based on your ancient mythical agenda
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
If you really know your ToE, you would know that many "scientists" believe humans evolved from fish --
And the position of the eyes place a critical role in their analysis and figuring that yes -- you evolved from FISH. Sorry to disillusion you. Take care. Look it up, it's easy to find. Search for: did humans evolve from fish? Or ask the really knowledgeable ones here if they evolved from fish. maybe they'll be honest enough for a change to tell you. Check out the eye part.
It has been obvious that you intentionally ignorant of the science of evolution.If you really know your ToE, you would know that many "scientists" believe humans evolved from fish --
And the position of the eyes place a critical role in their analysis and figuring that yes -- you evolved from FISH. Sorry to disillusion you. Take care. Look it up, it's easy to find. Search for: did humans evolve from fish? Or ask the really knowledgeable ones here if they evolved from fish. maybe they'll be honest enough for a change to tell you. Check out the eye part.
Your ignorance is a 'critical role in science involving the 'analysis and figuring.'
It is obvious you do not 'analyze of figure' anything related to science
Last edited:
If you really know your ToE, you would know that many "scientists" believe humans evolved from fish --
And the position of the eyes place a critical role in their analysis and figuring that yes -- you evolved from FISH. Sorry to disillusion you. Take care. Look it up, it's easy to find. Search for: did humans evolve from fish? Or ask the really knowledgeable ones here if they evolved from fish. maybe they'll be honest enough for a change to tell you. Check out the eye part.
Once again, opinion against evolution not evidence for an intelligent creator.
Audie
Veteran Member
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I didn't say it was evidence for an "intelligent creator." I said that it is evidently the prevailing opinion among scientists. They say humans evolved from fish. You don't have to believe it. Sorry to present you with this because you seem to object as if it's not true. Maybe you should talk to those who are really staunch believers of the theory say about this. They're quiet here, for some reason.
I didn't say it was evidence for an "intelligent creator." I said that it is evidently the prevailing opinion among scientists. They say humans evolved from fish. You don't have to believe it. Sorry to present you with this because you seem to object as if it's not true. Maybe you should talk to those who are really staunch believers of the theory say about this. They're quiet here, for some reason.
I've heard your fish dribble 1,000 times before and answered it. What I asked was evidence for your alleged intelligent creator. If you have none just say so and we can move on, if you do have some then answer my question and I can look at it.
Sorry, I assumed it went without saying it.
Audie
Veteran Member
Well, it sure got illustrated enough
times before I moved it to ig city
hoping for some relief.
Yes, evolution over billions of years from single-celled microorganisms to the present diversity of life including humans is the overwhelming view without question for 95%+ of all scientists in the fields related to evolution based on the overwhelming objective verifiable evidence.
Intelligent Design is not accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists, because it is not possible to falsify a hypothesis supporting ID. The Discovery Institute has spent millions of donations over many years and has failed to falsify any hypothesis to support the money they spent.