Jump to content

Intelligent Design or Pure Chance.........


Walesdad

Recommended Posts

Didn't stop the military from using dolphins in warfare PRECISELY because of their intelligence.

Conversely, I have yet to see any building as intricate and functional as a bee-hive or an ant-hill.

And Steve, the "hair" crack directed at Magic was beneath you...it's something I would expect from Big Dan or Spidersandsnakes. You're better than that.

Hi Strider,

Just goes to show how wrong you can be doesnt it?

I would never talk to an Inteligent Lady like Magic with the utter contempt Steve did and does show her, and it just goes to show the caliber of his character doesnt it?

But there are others that I would like to talk to like Steve does, but then again I am not Forum Royalty like he is am I? ;)

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, dolphins were used for military purposes on account of their biological sonar, not their intellegence. Secondly, Bee-hives and ant-hills are highly utilitarian systems but they are hardly the equivalent of an interstate highway system, at least not in my humble opinion.

Given Magic prides herself on being an intellectual I feel her vapid promotion of the monkey theory is beneath her (use your head for more than growing hair) as is her desperately wrong characterization of the photography I've shared with the forum.

But she's not insipid, and that is what I like about her. Life is a barrel of monkeys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Strider,

Just goes to show how wrong you can be doesnt it?

I would never talk to an Inteligent Lady like Magic with the utter contempt Steve did and does show her, and it just goes to show the caliber of his character doesnt it?

But there are others that I would like to talk to like Steve does, but then again I am not Forum Royalty like he is am I? ;)

Regards, Danny

Oh, But you are to me.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But she's not insipid, and that is what I like about her. Life is a barrel of monkeys.

I didn't say she was. I did say the theory she ascribes to is preposterous and encouraged her to reconsider her viewpoint.

dumb-blonde_max600.jpg

...according to some she'll ramble on into properly composed Shakespeare screenplays if just given enough time!

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say she was. I did say the theory she ascribes to is preposterous and encouraged her to reconsider her viewpoint.

...according to some she'll ramble on into properly composed Shakespeare screenplays if just given enough time!

So she likes monkeys and Shakespeare; nothing wrong with that. I don't really subscribe to the concept of man evolving from monkeys, but monkeys are very cute sometimes. I believe that God created monkeys just as He created holy cows, Shakespeare and everyone who posts on this message board. I believe that monkeys and humans are different but similar species that did not evolve from each other. I also believe that He created the humans in His own image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, But you are to me.

B)

You are joking MrZoso?

My banning orders are many and legendery whereas Steve is as immune from being banned as one could be, his DNA must contain anti-biotics or something.

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never talk to an Inteligent Lady like Magic with the utter contempt Steve did and does show her, and it just goes to show the caliber of his character doesnt it?

I think it says something about the duality of man. Besides, taking into account your own posts you are the last person on earth qualified to be an arbiter of anyone's character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion science often crosses over in some ways to a religion because it takes some monumental assumptions which could only be based on faith to arrive at their speculations. Where did the primordial atom come from? How is the transition from primate to man proven when therer are gaps in the fossil record that span somtimes tens of thousans of years? (in that case the ancient astronaut theory could make more sense).

And the other thing that often strikes me about science is the way in which some very large egos are so invested in a "theory" that they defend it like a faith. In that respect they remind me of religious leaders who will see it only one way, because to back track would mean the foundations of the theory may be wrong too.

Are we talking from the same hymn book or what Brad? :lol:

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it says something about the duality of man. Besides, taking into account your own posts you are the last person on earth qualified to be an arbiter of anyone's character.

Hi Steve,

I would always defend someone from a Forum Bully Boy like you, my own character is worn on my sleve for all to see and judge and although I have enemies like you and Electrobile, Hotplant and a few others, my friends on here I count in scores, can you say the same?

Behave yourself Steve and you should be alright, show people some respect and dont act like a "know it all" unless you are one, and I have proved many a time your shortcommings in that department, and leave the funnies alone, there are to many people that really are not impressed with your stand up routine and whilst I am getting encores you are being shown the door. :o;):lol:

Regards, Danny

PS, Meg Ireland ring any bells?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But obviously life needs to exist within something which may not support an "infinite monkey". I believe that type of assumption goes against everything observable about the life we see around us. If something could be sustained for billions of years to have that monumental shot at random chance, well then maybe. But to me you would have to add many many more layers upon layers of billions of factors necessary to get it right. Comic flares, shifting orbits, volcanism, plate tectonics, metors and so on. All of these things need to line up perfectly, not randomly. PEFECTLY they need to be acheived.

Or you can set all of that aside and acknowledge one simple truth, that human beings are the only life form whom possess self-awareness (and a rudimentary understanding of mortality). Without self-awareness human existence goes unexamined, and an unexamined existence does not become a Shakespeare screenplay no matter how much time passes.

PageasHermit.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "infinite monkey" theory is simply a way of illustrating the nature of infinity - given an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite amount of time, they'd eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare. They also write the manual for my refrigerator, the grocery list my wife wrote last week, the essay my neighbor wrote in freshman english class. That's just it, they'd type everything eventually, so by definition they'd type the complete works of Shakespeare. It's purely a way of describing the nature of infinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

I would always defend someone from a Forum Bully Boy like you, my own character is worn on my sleve for all to see and judge and although I have enemies like you and Electrobile, Hotplant and a few others, my friends on here I count in scores, can you say the same?

Behave yourself Steve and you should be alright, show people some respect and dont act like a "know it all" unless you are one, and I have proved many a time your shortcommings in that department, and leave the funnies alone, there are to many people that really are not impressed with your stand up routine and whilst I am getting encores you are being shown the door.

Regards, Danny

PS, Meg Ireland ring any bells?

I should think you'd have figured out by now that making friends is neither my concern nor my purpose for being here. Even so, we both know - by your own admission - it is you who have been shown the door more times than anyone can remember. I'd do

better to just put you on permanent ignore any day, where you couldn't even get to the starting line. The last time I considered it

you were banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of these statements support Einstein's original proposition that 'God doesn't play dice' - uncertainly is only provisional in science. However, in astrophysics today God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle where we cannot know the position and speed of a particple. There will always be unpredictablity in the universe. I know that Hawking in his most recent publications supports this line of argument. He stated in a recent lecture

'it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen'.

This lecture can be found at hawking.org.uk

Hawking in his Brief History of Time was sympathetic to the anthropic principle, and he did not dismiss the possibility that God had a hand in the creation of the world. Since that book was published he's changed his reasoning based on new scientific discoveries. In particular, Hawking has emphasised the discovery in 2010 of a planet orbiting a star other than our sun with characterstics similar to our own planet which could support earth-like life. According to Hawking, the law of gravity itself means the universe can spontaeously create something from nothing.

Therefore in his more recent book, The Grand Design, Hawking firmly believes that 'the universe does not need God to create it. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.'

I believe that if God exists at all, 'it' exists only in our own minds.

I'm sure that Stephen Hawking is a clever man but how do you create something from nothing?I mean NOTHING!?And even if it could,which would seem to anybody with a rational mind to be totally impossible,where did the gravity come from that apparently has the power to do all this creating?Get out of that Hawking. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that Stephen Hawking is a clever man but how do you create something from nothing?I mean NOTHING!?And even if it could,which would seem to anybody with a rational mind to be totally impossible,where did the gravity come from that apparently has the power to do all this creating?Get out of that Hawking. ;)

Stephen Hawking is more than just a "clever" man. BTW, have you ever heard of spontaneous combustion? Or did God come up with that too?

Also, if you're interested in gravity and all its ins and outs, perhaps you ought to hit up a book about Sir Issac Newton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Hawking is more than just a "clever" man. BTW, have you ever heard of spontaneous combustion? Or did God come up with that too?

Also, if you're interested in gravity and all its ins and outs, perhaps you ought to hit up a book about Sir Issac Newton.

Yes,spontaneous combustion does ring a bell,but for something to combust it has to be "something".If that "something" was nothing,that is,it did not exist,well it wouldn't be there to combust.

Sir Isaac was another one of them (clever people I mean).However,he only discovered gravity.He didn't create it and he didn't make the ludicrous claim that gravity could create something from nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should think you'd have figured out by now that making friends is neither my concern nor my purpose for being here. Even so, we both know - by your own admission - it is you who have been shown the door more times than anyone can remember. I'd do

better to just put you on permanent ignore any day, where you couldn't even get to the starting line. The last time I considered it

you were banned.

Hi Steve,

Yep, I know you dont come on here to find friends, but as to you purpose for being here i have not a clue, its not as if anyone on here could tell you anything you dont already know is it? :lol:

I've been banned about 6 times for flouting the rules, how come you flout the rules with impunity? Royalty or something? :yesnod:

It would make my day for you to put me on permanent ignore,go on make my day, it would show what great fear you have for someone who is not afraid of you or discouraged by your great interlect and knowledge, NOT. :drool:

Regards, Danny

PS, Maybe you could get me banned again? maybe not? who knows? just stop stalking people and picking on people who you regard as being beneath you interlectualy, deluded as you are. ;)

PPS, My last post on the subject, so you can have the last word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that Stephen Hawking is a clever man but how do you create something from nothing?I mean NOTHING!?

Beliefs are self-referential; our understanding of NOTHING is limited by our capacity to understand. I should write my own book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can see and feel the world around us, and science can prove its existence and explain where it came from. God on the other hand is, to quote John Lennon, a 'concept' that we've made up to help us explain things we don't understand. The material world is an objective reality, God is subjective perception of what we think might exist.

Understood, but my point is that what we think we see and feel might just be experiences that originate in our mind, or illlusions. The theories we have created to prove the realty of the world are mental theories and perhaps only illusions. According to Einstein, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beliefs are self-referential; our understanding of NOTHING is limited by our capacity to understand. I should write my own book.

Go ahead, there are lots of anti-evolution cranks out there publishing tripe like this. I could have a Nazi-style book burning rally in my back garden, with your book as the centre-piece.

With reagrds to the monkey theory which you seem to dismiss out of hand, there are LOTS of mathematical equations to support it. That's not to say it's not without its critics, but there isn't a theory in the academic world that isn't. I first came across it in a book called The Philosophy of Social Science by Martin Hollis as an undergraduate at university where I spent 7 years learning and trying to understand the world around me. I didn't have access to the internet then, everything I know I've read in real books.

Why shouldn't I discuss Shakespeare on here? Your President, who I have the utmost respect for, was happy to use his words in his speech last night. I didn't realise this was a dumbed down forum.

I do find the images you post to be degrading to women and offensive.

This is all I'm saying on this thread. As Danny has said above, you can have the last word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With reagrds to the monkey theory which you seem to dismiss out of hand, there are LOTS of mathematical equations to support it. That's not to say it's not without its critics, but there isn't a theory in the academic world that isn't. I first came across it in a book called The Philosophy of Social Science by Martin Hollis as an undergraduate at university where I spent 7 years learning and trying to understand the world around me. I didn't have access to the internet then, everything I know I've read in real books.

Why shouldn't I discuss Shakespeare on here? Your President, who I have the utmost respect for, was happy to use his words in his speech last night. I didn't realise this was a dumbed down forum.

I do find the images you post to be degrading to women and offensive.

This is all I'm saying on this thread. As Danny has said above, you can have the last word.

Funny you should say that because I was about to post a reply to Matt wherein I was going to say I can see where the monkey theory might apply regarding mathematics. (Infinite random number generators) However, I don't see how just given an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of monkeys Shakespeare's works would be replicated, or that a '57 Chevy would materialize, to cite just two examples.

I never said don't discuss Shakespeare; I will say when the forum appears dumbed down to me I make additions to my permanent ignore list.

In closing, there are some specific threads I post to that you might not like but no one forces you to go there. Might I suggest if you walk into a man cave expect to find yourself in a man cave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...