fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Sounds like the teenage mutant ninja turtle theory
Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!
- Thread starter MVP
- Start date
I agree with this. Because Newton wasn't born until the 17th century.
more mirror exercise indicated. . . . that little smilie, for example, is what I'm wearing now because, you see, you missed my point. well, I think. . . . .
the reason I compared contemporary understanding of "intelligent design" to the general understanding of Newton in the 14th century is precisely because I believe that by about 300 more years, most scientists will be comfortable with many aspects of "intelligent design" even though I don't expect them to have any consensus on what "God" is.
By then, I expect "life" to be transformed with respect to almost every living thing, by we, the scientists of today, blinded by. . . . our own so-called "intelligent" selves. We will have meddled so heavily into nature there will be only a few token "native" organisms left. . . . mostly in "life form libraries" where they can be isolated from engineered forms gone "wild".
At about that same era. . . . . the history books will be filled with horror stories of the arrogance and conceit and the horrendous impact of our current age of global thinkers who haven't the wit to question themselves before they do stupid stuff.
I'm pretty sure your "exception" was not a unique event, and in fact according to geological evidence, a lot more living things went extinct virtually at the same time as the dinosaurs, and that event is only one of several known "bottlenect" events in earth's living history.
Although invoking a further thought might seem too improbable for "science" to take it seriously, I would consider it likely, that there are similar "bottlenecks" in the grander universe, on uncounted planets now existing. . . . as well as in an endless cycle of "universes", and maybe in more dimensions that we are aware of. . . . .
with statistics, even "zero probabilities" do happen given infinite time and expanse. . . .
the unique thing about "life" is "consciousness", the ability to perceive something of a context or circumstance, and with it the "intelligence" to create a plan for dealing with it. . . . . on every imaginable scale of things. . . .
and that is why, even though the scoffers today snicker at "intelligent design", they will not carry the debate. The statistics say they are dead wrong.
the reason life goes on is because life has in it's nature the "intelligence" to take effective action to increase it's survival stats. We all do this individually, and so we are all living proofs of the theorem of "intelligent design", even the scientists who argue with such stunning stupidity against it.
There are some types of slime molds that alternate between living as single-celled organisms and forming a single, multi-celled organism. In humans, many types of cancer can be thought of as a cell or a few cells turning their back on cooperation, and striking out as single-celled organisms. You are approximately six trillion individual cells that, for the most part, cooperate. They all came out of a single cell, and later on come of those cells differentiated due to various proteins that were produced, but all cells come from the same thing.
The descendants of fish are always fish, even when they are bipedal apes.
Yes, everything is just really everything.
Being comfortable with the notion of intelligent design is different from saying intelligent design is a scientific proposition (for example, Ken Brown is a scientist who thinks God created the world, and testified against intelligent design being used in a science class).
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
......now that clears up EVERYTHING for me!
Both true and irrelevant to your claim that there are only two types of extinctions (1) Dinosaurs and (2) Man-made
I gave you a plethora of others extinctions and major extinction events.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....however, the other "extinctions" not man made date back past the Dinosaur era, true or false?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
His name is Kenneth Miller and he just wanted a monopoly for his biology textbook.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Design ain't "magic."
The "work" of a god would be the opposite of "random and undirected."
Last edited:
I'm bored, you are hopeless.
I don't mind teaching, but if you want to be my student you have to spend a little effort trying to learn and reading a bit of the material I have pointed you towards. This is tiring.
Unless you start reading, you are condemned to ignorance.
Many species go extinct all the time if you would take a few minutes to read the link I sent you.
Many species in the modern era are caused directly or indirectly by humans (e.g., giant sloth and mammoths in Americas)
Were these guys killed by humans, 2 million years ago?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorusrhacids
I don't mind teaching, but if you want to be my student you have to spend a little effort trying to learn and reading a bit of the material I have pointed you towards. This is tiring.
Unless you start reading, you are condemned to ignorance.
Many species go extinct all the time if you would take a few minutes to read the link I sent you.
Many species in the modern era are caused directly or indirectly by humans (e.g., giant sloth and mammoths in Americas)
Were these guys killed by humans, 2 million years ago?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorusrhacids
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
We are not fish. We like fish are vertebrates.
The point that (I think) he is trying to make is that these are just categories that we have created. A prototypical fish never gave birth to a prototypical amphibian. We put a creature in the amphibian category when it has an "adequate" amount of prototypical amphibian features that we feel amphibian defines it better. The reality is the borderlands between fish and amphibians is populated by many creatures descended from a prototypical fish that through slight variation have increasingly more amphibian like features.
Race is a good example of the kind of categorical thinking we are prone to. We all know that there isn't a real line between white and black people. We all realize that we can begin in Norway and head southwest and the native people will get progressively darker as we make the turn into Syria they will get darker still through Egypt and Sudan until we eventually reach the heart of Africa. We all know that it is a continuous spectrum but we draw lines, categorize, create definitions.
It seems that our brains are wired for categorization first then for relationships.
Last edited: