I was in the desert, even a mud puddle was tempting. I was looking for a model in a forest of articles about forests plus I had to make sure it was secular because only secular sources are valid for some. The title and the picture sold me. I am not abandoning my years of hearing this model every time I turned around but trying to prove it is apparently going to be far beyond the time
Robin. A real forest entails independent arising of life on earth several time. That is, independent development of the same mechanisms, DNA structure, etc. Such a discovery would rattle science at its foundation and would appear on all papers in the world, including USA today. That is why I am pretty confident that you will have problems to find evidence of it that goes beyond second rate journalism.
My advice is to check such scientific evidence in organizations with a clear agenda, like Answers in Genesis. If they don't have it, it does not exist.
It appears that it would require more time than I have to find it. The problem is that any key words lead to a thousand pages on actual forest evolution. Apparently forest evolution is a prolific subject. I can acknowledge the persuasiveness of my claim will not be supported unless I get a break in the time demands of my job. You can place my claims on hold if you desire for this issue.
I would suggest you do not waste time looking for something that does not exist. At least until now.
In my understanding of physics the Quantum does not generally replace Newtonian physics. It is generally applicable where Newton is not. The name it's self is exclusionary. In three semesters of Physics, dynamics, statics, and even light physics no mention of the Quantum was heard, thank God because light is vexing enough using traditional physics.
Well, it does. It is just that they closely match for classical objects like buildings, bridges and the Space Shuttle. So, we still use Newton because it is simpler in that range of applications. Newton is a good-enough approximation in certain applications, especially mechanical and civil engineering.
Maybe challenges it is a better word. Things as prized as evolution, I even showed that specifically in the case on simply a model of evolution, do not just get abandoned. Even after archeological evidence turns up in piles historical models are begrudgingly parted with. Evolution is still young, my point was that even this soon the trajectory is in a similar direction as countless other models. Steady state gone, flat earth gone, earth centric universe gone, I do not imagine evolution will ever go away but it's form will probably change dramatically.
Well, then let's discuss about it when it changed in directions that question naturalism. I will not hold my breath, though.
The earliest form of evolution was a very slow and gradual change over eons. That was it's essential essence. It is as if one of it's pillars has been removed. The thing still but it does not appear the same. I think in the end it will be radically different.
Yes, I understand why you have this opinion. But what evidence do you have that this will be the case? Just a hunch?
Even if it could (and I have never heard a hint it could) the quantum has not supplanted Newton. Go to engineering schools sand you will get Newton-ed to death without having the Quantum be mentioned in any class. It is not even understood in large measure how could it have replaced anything. I have always heard the exact same thing. Newtonian physics does not explain the atomic level and the Quantum is useful there. I have never heard even a hint that any replacement has occurred or will.
No one is crazy enough to teach relativity or quantum physics to future mechanical or civil engineers. But this is not because quantum mechanics would not cover that, but because it would be the equivalent of killing a mosquito with a laser gun. Newton is much simpler and matches well enough with more accurate and comprehensive theories within our classical world, which is what classical primates like us need to deal with.
I don't think any evolutionary model contradicts the bible, at best it contradicts one interpretation of a few verses out of many.
Obviously. Whenever you have such a power of interpretations, nothing can contradict the Bible. This is how it survived until now, actually.
However let's pretend it does in it's oldest formulation. Since the older formulation doe snot seem to be accurate then it's potency is becoming diluted. The bible says God created life but that life can change within limits. the newer models are far more consistent with that than Darwin's original ideas. I do not imagine evolution of some amount will ever go away because it appears in genesis. If all life forms are static that would be a better argument against the bible than evolution.
The problem is that I am still missing these newer models. Where are they?
How do you get certified as secular. Is there a test you must flunk first? Just kidding.
I was thinking of starting a certification program and sell insurances to believers in the rapture. For a modest $100 a month, we will take care of the pets that will be inevitably left behind together with certified secular people in case of raptures, second comings and similar events.
It was the particular kind of nonsense I was drawing attention to here. It is so prolific it is like a compulsion and I can't even invent a bad explanation for it.
I understand. That is why I prefer to call myself as a naturalist, which is very small subset of secularism. I know very secular people who believe that water molecules have memory of the things they had contact with and that this fact can help to fight diseases. Forgetting, thereby, that there is almost 100% certainty that the water contained in any container has molecules that were in contact with Julius Caesar's urine, as well.
I get false hope, I even think it is a reasonable application of a version of Pascal's wager. That is what makes these so strange because even if true they of any use to anyone who is claiming them. Mr. Baldwin's great great great grandson going to live on Mars won't help Alec Baldwin, so where is the hope. Dawkins answering that aliens may have ceded life on earth doe snot even change the problem.
Agree. No use. Postulating that life comes from Mars, even if it were true, would simply postpone the problem.
You mentioned some areas where I expect to find preference like philosophy and generic spirituality. However when those that lecture us on what is "scientific" tell me that the only place can't be from is the one place it is known to exist it is another matter. Neither my religion nor any outside influence caused me to get overtly suspicious of science, scientists did that long before I had faith. I think college stripped away all the mesmirization I viewed science with. The worst place was faculty speeches after hours.
I wonder why. You seem to be proud of the conquests of the human intellect. Call it the Space Shuttle or rubidium oscillators. But it is true that scientists are humans who can err. But its big advantage is that scientists are also ambitious and like to prove their colleagues wrong. At the end, is evidence that decides.
I think cynicism would produce a lack of hope.
Nope. It is flat honesty that would. If you expose the tricks used by some so-called mediums who claim to set people in contact with the deceased love ones, you will be the bad guy that kills hope.
I also would not be surprised if some would buy my post-rapture pet insurance.
Someone here kept typing in Greek. Thought it was you.
I have the possibly childish habit of stimulating healthy skepticism. Writing a Greek sentence on a forum, does not entail knowing Greek. You need much more evidence before coming to this conclusion. First principle: simplicity. I simply asked my friend with a classical education to send me a quote of Democritus about atoms.
I know the Greek alphabet, though. For professional reasons.
Actually I have heard people speaking in tongues and thought they were all faking. You might not believe it but I am very skeptical of miracle claims in general. I also think any occasion where God allows speaking in tongues for an interpreter to also be inspired. There is no point otherwise. I do not get the what worked with me joke. I hate it when I don't get jokes. Good neutrality joke above, though. I have some favorite neutrality quotes from the great sages of Rush.
First principle, again. Whether speaking in tongues is true or not, it is a falsifiable claim. All you have to do is ask the subject to translate something in tongues. For instance "elephants have good memory". Record the angelic translation and ask another episcopalian what it says.
I used that method with media (plural of medium I guess) that claimed to get in contact with the deceased. I always ask to get in contact with A. Einstein. Once communication has been established, I asked Einstein what he thinks of his pseudo-Riemannian metric tensor of time space acquiring a fully positive metric in some parts of the Universe.
Connection lost. Always.
1. There is no hero in neutrality.
2. If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
I love heroes. Especially if they are ready to take the job instead of me. lol.
Ciao
- viole
