Discussion:
Is there a world-class world leader running for US president?
(too old to reply)
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-04 22:30:54 UTC
Permalink
My choices are Rudy Guiliani or Duncan Hunter...They've got the right
stuff, IMHO.
Gary Carson
2007-08-04 23:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
My choices are Rudy Guiliani or Duncan Hunter...They've got the right
stuff, IMHO.
Rudy?

LOL.

The guy who recommended a head of Homeland Security who was so mobbed up he
couldn't put a den in his basement without mob help.

World class.  LOL.


Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-05 00:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
Post by j***@earthlink.net
My choices are Rudy Guiliani or Duncan Hunter...They've got the right
stuff, IMHO.
Rudy?
LOL.
The guy who recommended a head of Homeland Security who was so mobbed up he
couldn't put a den in his basement without mob help.
World class. LOL.
Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
JEH...Now you've flamed my choice, what about you?

...Who do you think, of the current candidates, will be a world class,
world leader?
James L. Hankins
2007-08-05 00:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
Post by j***@earthlink.net
My choices are Rudy Guiliani or Duncan Hunter...They've got the right
stuff, IMHO.
Rudy?
LOL.
The guy who recommended a head of Homeland Security who was so mobbed up he
couldn't put a den in his basement without mob help.
World class. LOL.
Mobbed-up really doesn't bother me. I don't really want anyone with family
values in charge of the country. Nice guys get bulldozed in this world.
And really, for the most part, although I don't want some ruthless sociopath
in office, a strong-willed person who gets shit done, even if he's mobbed up
or uses aggressive methods, is someone I want running the country.

I've given Bush credit for being a strong leader because he is. He
implements his agenda and doesn't give a shit who criticizes it. I just
don't agree with his agenda.

I don't see Giuliani as being much different than Bush in that regard. I
just see myself agreeing with Rudy's agenda on a lot of policy issues.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
2007-08-05 01:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Mobbed-up really doesn't bother me. I don't really want anyone with family
values in charge of the country. Nice guys get bulldozed in this world.
And really, for the most part, although I don't want some ruthless sociopath
in office, a strong-willed person who gets shit done, even if he's mobbed up
or uses aggressive methods, is someone I want running the country.
So you want someone corrupt who fucks the country over, leaves it bankrupt,
then burns it down for insurance.

Good plan.
James L. Hankins
2007-08-05 21:29:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:58:14 -0500, "James L. Hankins"
Post by James L. Hankins
Mobbed-up really doesn't bother me. I don't really want anyone with family
values in charge of the country. Nice guys get bulldozed in this world.
And really, for the most part, although I don't want some ruthless sociopath
in office, a strong-willed person who gets shit done, even if he's mobbed up
or uses aggressive methods, is someone I want running the country.
So you want someone corrupt who fucks the country over, leaves it bankrupt,
then burns it down for insurance.
Good plan.
No, I want someone corrupt who fucks the other guy's country over, leaves it
bankrupt, and then burns down the other guy's country for the insurance.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
2007-08-05 22:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:58:14 -0500, "James L. Hankins"
Post by James L. Hankins
Mobbed-up really doesn't bother me. I don't really want anyone with family
values in charge of the country. Nice guys get bulldozed in this world.
And really, for the most part, although I don't want some ruthless sociopath
in office, a strong-willed person who gets shit done, even if he's mobbed up
or uses aggressive methods, is someone I want running the country.
So you want someone corrupt who fucks the country over, leaves it bankrupt,
then burns it down for insurance.
Good plan.
No, I want someone corrupt who fucks the other guy's country over, leaves it
bankrupt, and then burns down the other guy's country for the insurance.
Corruption cuts both ways. Rarely will you find a crook who won't steal from
you given the chance.

While corruption may be okay from the standpoint of being someone able to pay
off the corrupt officials, it is ultimately destructive of public trust, erodes
confidence in institutions, and if it matters, morally repellent. Corruption
prevents the predictability, orderliness, and fairness necessary for
good government.

The necessary ruthlessness for achieving certain policy goals should not
be confused with corruption.
Gary Carson
2007-08-05 23:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:58:14 -0500, "James L. Hankins"
Mobbed-up really doesn't bother me. I don't really want anyone with
family
values in charge of the country. Nice guys get bulldozed in this world.
And really, for the most part, although I don't want some ruthless sociopath
in office, a strong-willed person who gets shit done, even if he's mobbed up
or uses aggressive methods, is someone I want running the country.
So you want someone corrupt who fucks the country over, leaves it bankrupt,
then burns it down for insurance.
Good plan.
No, I want someone corrupt who fucks the other guy's country over, leaves it
bankrupt, and then burns down the other guy's country for the insurance.
Corruption cuts both ways. Rarely will you find a crook who won't steal from
you given the chance.
While corruption may be okay from the standpoint of being someone able to pay
off the corrupt officials, it is ultimately destructive of public trust, erodes
confidence in institutions, and if it matters, morally repellent. Corruption
prevents the predictability, orderliness, and fairness necessary for
good government.
The necessary ruthlessness for achieving certain policy goals should not
be confused with corruption.
Chicago was known as the "City that Worked".  Also the "City that could deliver
a Presidential Election".  The Cook County Democract Commitee defined corrupt
government.  Then they had a Police Riot in 1968 and things kind of started to
fall apart.  The Committee was still alive when I lived in Chicago from 77-82,
but it was falling apart and losing power.

Jim, Do you think Daley Sr. would have made a good president?


Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
James L. Hankins
2007-08-06 00:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:58:14 -0500, "James L. Hankins"
Mobbed-up really doesn't bother me. I don't really want anyone with
family
values in charge of the country. Nice guys get bulldozed in this world.
And really, for the most part, although I don't want some ruthless sociopath
in office, a strong-willed person who gets shit done, even if he's
mobbed
up
or uses aggressive methods, is someone I want running the country.
So you want someone corrupt who fucks the country over, leaves it bankrupt,
then burns it down for insurance.
Good plan.
No, I want someone corrupt who fucks the other guy's country over, leaves it
bankrupt, and then burns down the other guy's country for the insurance.
Corruption cuts both ways. Rarely will you find a crook who won't steal from
you given the chance.
While corruption may be okay from the standpoint of being someone able to pay
off the corrupt officials, it is ultimately destructive of public trust, erodes
confidence in institutions, and if it matters, morally repellent. Corruption
prevents the predictability, orderliness, and fairness necessary for
good government.
The necessary ruthlessness for achieving certain policy goals should not
be confused with corruption.
Chicago was known as the "City that Worked". Also the "City that could
deliver
a Presidential Election". The Cook County Democract Commitee defined
corrupt
government. Then they had a Police Riot in 1968 and things kind of started
to
fall apart. The Committee was still alive when I lived in Chicago from
77-82,
but it was falling apart and losing power.
Jim, Do you think Daley Sr. would have made a good president?
Sure he would have.

What criteria establishes a good President? A strong leader; works well
with others and makes the government function; has an understanding of how
to accomplish goals within the political system; smart enough to know he's
not that smart and to surround himself with people who are smarter than him;
willing to defer to the judgment of others in some areas (i.e., military).

There are many more. Daley would probably be out of his depth on foreign
policy but on balance yes, I think he would have made a fine President.

Of course there is a concern about corruption and cronyism, but in politics,
particularly at the Presidential level, that's pretty much a given. Bush
tried to elevate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, fer shit's sake and
Haliburton his essentially having its way with the treasury.

At bottom, the Presidency is about decisive leadership. That's why Kerry
was so stung with the "flip-flopper" label and why Bush won in my opinion.
President Bush is a strong, decisive leader. That goes a long way in my
book.

I actually changed my registration from Democrat to Republican for a brief
period after the Democratic convention when Gore ran. The entire focus of
the convention from my perspective was inclusion and being responsive to
everyone's feelings. Those things are noble ideas but it's not what I want
in a President
arlo payne
2007-08-04 23:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
My choices are Rudy Guiliani or Duncan Hunter...They've got the right
stuff, IMHO.
LOL
You are kidding I hope.
Anyone that is right for the job doesn't want the job.


 

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-05 00:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by arlo payne
Post by j***@earthlink.net
My choices are Rudy Guiliani or Duncan Hunter...They've got the right
stuff, IMHO.
LOL
You are kidding I hope.
Anyone that is right for the job doesn't want the job.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
JEh...The question is, who do you pick from the list of US
presidential candidates, to qualify as a world leader?


I named mine, let's hear yours...
N. Silver
2007-08-05 01:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEh...The question is, who do you pick from the list of US
presidential candidates, to qualify as a world leader?
I named mine, let's hear yours...
It's obvious: Hillary Rodham Clinton with the same name as
the last president, who qualified as a world leader. She's
smarter and better educated than the rest; better versed on
the issues; is concerned about health care and education;
will protect children and the middle class; has experience in
Congress and The White House and can work with politi-
cians, who have different agendas.
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-05 13:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by N. Silver
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEh...The question is, who do you pick from the list of US
presidential candidates, to qualify as a world leader?
I named mine, let's hear yours...
It's obvious: Hillary Rodham Clinton with the same name as
the last president, who qualified as a world leader. She's
smarter and better educated than the rest; better versed on
the issues; is concerned about health care and education;
will protect children and the middle class; has experience in
Congress and The White House and can work with politi-
cians, who have different agendas.
JEH... Did the fact she engineered a false affidavit from Bill's bimbo
influence your choice?
FL Turbo
2007-08-05 14:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by N. Silver
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEh...The question is, who do you pick from the list of US
presidential candidates, to qualify as a world leader?
I named mine, let's hear yours...
It's obvious: Hillary Rodham Clinton with the same name as
the last president, who qualified as a world leader. She's
smarter and better educated than the rest; better versed on
the issues; is concerned about health care and education;
will protect children and the middle class; has experience in
Congress and The White House and can work with politi-
cians, who have different agendas.
JEH... Did the fact she engineered a false affidavit from Bill's bimbo
influence your choice?
Just a minor, little piece of the political baggage she has to carry
around with her.

It's too early in the game for the Repos to start in on the
examination of all her baggage.

Actually, she looks to be pulling way out in front of her competition.

The 2 contenders closest to her have been spending the last couple of
weeks making themselves look like fools.

In the last debate, Obama said he would meet personally with any world
leader, including those of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, et al.
Hillary very correctly pointed out that it would only hand those
dictators a propaganda victory.

Obama's biggest problem is his color.
He is green.
Not green as in the Green Party, but green as in unseasoned wood.

His biggest advantage is his age.
He can lose this one and still be a big player in the coming years.


And then there is John (Breck girl) Edwards.
He was last heard, petulantly whining about how "they" were out to
silence him.
He was still going to speak out.

All in all, I agree with the OP that compared to the other likely Demo
contenders, Hillary is the Man for the Job.
James L. Hankins
2007-08-05 21:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Just a minor, little piece of the political baggage she has to carry
around with her.
It's too early in the game for the Repos to start in on the
examination of all her baggage.
Actually, she looks to be pulling way out in front of her competition.
"Baggage" is relative. She has no more than Dubya did (failed businessman,
draft dodger, coke-head, etc.) but none of that shit actually matters to
partisans.
Post by FL Turbo
The 2 contenders closest to her have been spending the last couple of
weeks making themselves look like fools.
In the last debate, Obama said he would meet personally with any world
leader, including those of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, et al.
Hillary very correctly pointed out that it would only hand those
dictators a propaganda victory.
That's a debatable point and hardly makes Obama look like a "fool." Sure,
those dictators can make propaganda pieces out of such a visit, but they
make propaganda pieces out of everything.

Ignoring them doesn't seem to be a much wiser course to me.
Post by FL Turbo
Obama's biggest problem is his color.
He is green.
Not green as in the Green Party, but green as in unseasoned wood.
Yep.
Post by FL Turbo
His biggest advantage is his age.
He can lose this one and still be a big player in the coming years.
Yep.
Post by FL Turbo
And then there is John (Breck girl) Edwards.
He was last heard, petulantly whining about how "they" were out to
silence him.
He was still going to speak out.
I've been analyzing what it is about Edwards that is making me balk. He
says all the right things in just the right way, but still, he just can't
close to deal with me. The more I think about it, I think the guy is just
too compassionate and caring. That sounds odd to say it in that way, but I
need to see from him some fire or some pluck instead of feel-good ooziness
and nice hair.
Post by FL Turbo
All in all, I agree with the OP that compared to the other likely Demo
contenders, Hillary is the Man for the Job.
Sure, she is. The Repo candidate just might step on his own dick, too, and
allow her to walk right into the White House. I think there's a good chance
of that happening. Especially if you want to bring up the "B" word
(baggage); there's plenty of that to go around.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
2007-08-05 22:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by FL Turbo
In the last debate, Obama said he would meet personally with any world
leader, including those of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, et al.
Hillary very correctly pointed out that it would only hand those
dictators a propaganda victory.
That's a debatable point and hardly makes Obama look like a "fool." Sure,
those dictators can make propaganda pieces out of such a visit, but they
make propaganda pieces out of everything.
Ignoring them doesn't seem to be a much wiser course to me.
One should always negotiate, even when a course of action has already
been decided on. That is, unless you fear that you are so incompetent
and your enemy so more skillful that if you do negotiate, you will give
away more information than you will gain.

I can see that Bush and anyone in his Administration might be better
served by refusing to negotiate, since they'd come off poorly even
against ratbastard psychotic shits like Kim Jong-Il and positively
get their asses kicked by clever politicians like Hugo Chavez.

But competent leaders need not fear negotiation.
Iceman
2007-08-06 04:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
It's too early in the game for the Repos to start in on the
examination of all her baggage.
Frankly, after Bush's disasters, I doubt many voters will be in any
mood to hear about Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky!
Post by FL Turbo
Actually, she looks to be pulling way out in front of her competition.
In primary polls, Edwards is doing well among rural and older voters,
Obama is doing well among younger, urban and higher-income voters, and
Hillary does well across the board, but especially with women and
lower-income voters. She's the clear front-runner, but is actually
having trouble in some of the early primary states, and there's still
plenty of time for the others to catch up.
Post by FL Turbo
The 2 contenders closest to her have been spending the last couple of
weeks making themselves look like fools.
In the last debate, Obama said he would meet personally with any world
leader, including those of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, et al.
Hillary very correctly pointed out that it would only hand those
dictators a propaganda victory.
Combined with his comments on nuking Pakistan, the impression is that
he's a real foreign policy novice who would be out of his depth in the
presidency.
Post by FL Turbo
Obama's biggest problem is his color.
He is green.
Not green as in the Green Party, but green as in unseasoned wood.
Neither Hillary nor Edwards are very experienced either however.
Post by FL Turbo
His biggest advantage is his age.
He can lose this one and still be a big player in the coming years.
If he loses the presidential nomination he might be vice president.
Post by FL Turbo
All in all, I agree with the OP that compared to the other likely Demo
contenders, Hillary is the Man for the Job.
Hillary is actually rather centrist - her presidency would be Bush-
Lite, not a total reversal of Bush and his policies, which is what I'm
hoping for from Edwards.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
2007-08-06 04:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
Combined with his comments on nuking Pakistan, the impression is that
he's a real foreign policy novice who would be out of his depth in the
presidency.
There is a real wing of people in the Democratic Party on board with this
whole nuke Pakistan idea. I have no idea where the fuck it comes from,
but it seems to appeal to some Democrats. I think it's insane and I wish
it would stop. OTOH I think Pakistan is at best a shitty, unreliable ally
and at worst, their ISI is to this date harboring Osama bin Laden, or at
least blocking attempts to catch him. If this sort of thing continues,
bombing them does not seem out of the question. Nuking anyone at
all who does not represent an immediate nuclear threat, however, is
completely out of line and such speculation is grossly inappropriate.

We have the conventional means to handle any conventional threat
(short of China) and nuclear retaliation should be reserved for nuclear
threats.
bo dark
2007-08-06 04:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
Post by Iceman
Combined with his comments on nuking Pakistan, the impression is that
he's a real foreign policy novice who would be out of his depth in the
presidency.
There is a real wing of people in the Democratic Party on board with this
whole nuke Pakistan idea. I have no idea where the fuck it comes from,
but it seems to appeal to some Democrats. I think it's insane and I wish
it would stop. OTOH I think Pakistan is at best a shitty, unreliable ally
and at worst, their ISI is to this date harboring Osama bin Laden, or at
least blocking attempts to catch him. If this sort of thing continues,
bombing them does not seem out of the question. Nuking anyone at
all who does not represent an immediate nuclear threat, however, is
completely out of line and such speculation is grossly inappropriate.
We have the conventional means to handle any conventional threat
(short of China) and nuclear retaliation should be reserved for nuclear
threats.
i think making osama bin laden a non entity would be a good move in
the war on terror.offering 50 million dollars for his capture only
keeps his name in the limelight internationally,if he is killed
someone else will fill the void.the less he is mentioned the sooner he
is forgotten,as it is he is isolated.

they should keep up the pressure on him but not mention his name,i'm
sure his celebrity drives him on somewhat.i hear he has serious health
issues,why give 50 million for a bag of bones.pakistan has 7 million
ethnic pathans,the largest ethnic group in afghanistan,i'm sure they
have to play politics internally,like we do with mexicans.

why nuke pakistan,give the indians a little time.
Iceman
2007-08-06 15:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
Post by Iceman
Combined with his comments on nuking Pakistan, the impression is that
he's a real foreign policy novice who would be out of his depth in the
presidency.
There is a real wing of people in the Democratic Party on board with this
whole nuke Pakistan idea. I have no idea where the fuck it comes from,
but it seems to appeal to some Democrats. I think it's insane and I wish
it would stop.
Pakistanis are understandably angry at American presidential
candidates discussing nuking their country! How would we respond if
Pakistani candidates for president were discussing nuking the US?
Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
OTOH I think Pakistan is at best a shitty, unreliable ally
and at worst, their ISI is to this date harboring Osama bin Laden, or at
least blocking attempts to catch him. If this sort of thing continues,
bombing them does not seem out of the question.
I can see Special Forces raids across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border,
or targeted conventional bombing of known terror camps. But nuclear
weapons are completely unthinkable in this situation.
Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
Nuking anyone at all who does not represent an immediate nuclear threat, however, is
completely out of line and such speculation is grossly inappropriate.
Yes. Obama thinks this makes him sound tough - it just makes him
sound irresponsible.
Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
We have the conventional means to handle any conventional threat
(short of China) and nuclear retaliation should be reserved for nuclear
threats.
There should be a clear understanding that nuclear weapons won't be
used unless there is a nuclear attack or an imminent threat of a
nuclear attack.
Schmedley
2007-08-04 23:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
My choices are Rudy Guiliani or Duncan Hunter...They've got the right
stuff, IMHO.
Having never heard of Duncan Hunter (cake mix?, Immortal?), I went to his
web site and found this chestnut (without further comment):

Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Congressman Hunter Statement on Evolution:


The Declaration of Independence begins with these simple words, "We hold
these truths to be self-evident." Self-evident. Patently obvious.
Completely clear. It is self-evident that "all men are created equal."
Not equal by government edict or by an act of a king or monarch. We are not
equal by virtue of any particular article of the Constitution - we are
created equal.



The Declaration continues.. "and that they are endowed by their creator with
certain unalienable rights." This is a vital component of what makes us a
free society. We are raised from childhood in this country to accept the
concept of human rights. That we as Americans are a free people. Included
in those freedoms are freedom of speech, of the press. and freedom of
religion. But, we often fail to teach our children why we are secure in
those rights or should be. Why, as an American, you should expect the
freedom to live your life as you see fit with a minimal of government
interference. Why you should expect to be able to worship in the church of
your choice without fear. What gives us the confidence that this is our
heritage, our birth-right as Americans?



Freedom only works if we acknowledge what is so clearly set forth in the
Declaration of Independence. that our rights come from the hand of Almighty
God. If government gives you your rights. then government can just as easily
take those rights away. Democracy easily turns to mob rule without the
fundamental understanding that government of the people, by the people and
for the people only works if an individual's rights are unalienable . only
if we, each, have a fundamental worth and dignity as a human being. And,
that fundamental, unalienable worth only has validity if one acknowledges
the true source of that worth and dignity.God.



When Chris Matthews asked one of my fellow candidates if he believed in
evolution, the question was designed to embarrass my fellow Republicans.
Whether or not, at some level, created beings adapt to their surroundings,
or change to some degree over generations is not the right understanding of
that question. The real question is this: Does God exist and did he
create us? The liberties of every American citizen, including those of
Chris Matthews, hang in the balance if we get the answer to that question
wrong.
OrangeSFO
2007-08-05 00:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Schmedley
And,
that fundamental, unalienable worth only has validity if one acknowledges
the true source of that worth and dignity.God.
The liberties of every American citizen, including those of
Chris Matthews, hang in the balance if we get the answer to that question
wrong.
Another Littlebrain who needs a "God" to define his rights and worth
as a human being?

What if God was proven to NOT exist...? Would those rights then cease
to exist?
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-05 00:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by Schmedley
And,
that fundamental, unalienable worth only has validity if one acknowledges
the true source of that worth and dignity.God.
The liberties of every American citizen, including those of
Chris Matthews, hang in the balance if we get the answer to that question
wrong.
Another Littlebrain who needs a "God" to define his rights and worth
as a human being?
What if God was proven to NOT exist...? Would those rights then cease
to exist?
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist, when the various
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..

Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.

Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
Monty Burns
2007-08-05 09:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Chance?  Happenstance?  Or the result of an iterative process that has been
ongoing for billions of years?  BIG difference.

But your logic is much more appealing, "It's really complicated, I can't
understand it, therefore it must have been created by an old guy with a  beard
who lives in the sky."

Good thinking.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by Schmedley
And,
that fundamental, unalienable worth only has validity if one acknowledges
the true source of that worth and dignity.God.
The liberties of every American citizen, including those of
Chris Matthews, hang in the balance if we get the answer to that question
wrong.
Another Littlebrain who needs a "God" to define his rights and worth
as a human being?
What if God was proven to NOT exist...? Would those rights then cease
to exist?
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist, when the various
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-05 12:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Chance? Happenstance? Or the result of an iterative process that has been
ongoing for billions of years? BIG difference.
But your logic is much more appealing, "It's really complicated, I can't
understand it, therefore it must have been created by an old guy with a beard
who lives in the sky."
Good thinking.
?
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by OrangeSFO
What if God was proven to NOT exist...? Would those rights then cease
to exist?
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist, when the various
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
JEH...Instead, I should believe some young guy, with no beard, whose a
legend in his own mind?

Give me the old guy with a beard anytime...You are so smart AND
simultaneously clueless.
Monty Burns
2007-08-05 16:18:50 UTC
Permalink
And the most important thing is that you must "believe" someone. 

Congratulations! You have described ignorance of the scientific method most
succinctly.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Chance? Happenstance? Or the result of an iterative process that has been
ongoing for billions of years? BIG difference.
But your logic is much more appealing, "It's really complicated, I can't
understand it, therefore it must have been created by an old guy with a
beard
who lives in the sky."
Good thinking.
?
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by OrangeSFO
What if God was proven to NOT exist...? Would those rights then cease
to exist?
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist, when the various
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com-/ Hide quoted
text -
- Show quoted text -
JEH...Instead, I should believe some young guy, with no beard, whose a
legend in his own mind?
Give me the old guy with a beard anytime...You are so smart AND
simultaneously clueless.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
ruylopez
2007-08-05 20:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist, when the various
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
Well, it's not chance that brings about the order you see in complex modern life
like us mammals.  It's hundreds of millions of years of evolution driven by
selection.  I'm not saying anything about the existance of God, but he certainly
isn't needed to explain how this sort of complex life arises.  The theory of how
life arose on earth in the first place and how it has reached its present state
is actually very developed.

But your basic point I'd like to address because it's a common misconception. 
Actually, evolution, and life on earth, does not always exhibit a flawless
design.  Of course things like vision are miraculously complicated, however the
notion that these designs are so perfect the bear the hallmarks of the divine
doesn't hold with an examination of how life, and evolution, really works. 
Evolution simply works with what it has to adapt to the new selective pressures
in the environment.  Frequently, the results are clumsy.  And in these clumsy
solutions created by nature, you find reason to believe that no, this is not all
some perfect design.

To use a common example there is a great article by Steven Gould called The
Panda's Thumb in which he discusses in biological terms the 'thumb', or apparent
sixth digit which panda bears have, and use to manipulate bamboo, almost as we
use opposable thumbs.  But it's not actually a thumb at all, but a clumsy
extension of the seismoid bone which builds on a structure already present in
other bears.  It works, but it's no opposable thumb!  In nature, you can see
this theme all around, structures that used to serve one purpose are now adapted
for another, clumsily made to work, sometimes in designs that would turn an
engineer's stomach.  The concept that they were all designed by a divine,
flawless engineer seems actually quite ridiculous.


_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2007-08-05 21:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist, when the various
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
Well, it's not chance that brings about the order you see in complex modern life
like us mammals.  It's hundreds of millions of years of evolution driven by
Don't be stupid.  We have historical documentation that evolution has only been
around about 4,000 years. 


Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Pepe Papon
2007-08-08 09:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist, when the various
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
It's not only hard to prove God does not exist, it's thoroughly
impossible. By the same token, it's equally impossible to prove his
existence. You either believe it or you don't. That's why it's
called "faith".
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
Not at all. 4 billion years is a long, long time.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
Non-sequitur.
--
~ Seth Jackson

MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Monty Burns
2007-08-05 22:38:43 UTC
Permalink
excellent post. So good in fact, I can't believe I read it here.
Post by ruylopez
Well, it's not chance that brings about the order you see in complex modern life
like us mammals.  It's hundreds of millions of years of evolution driven by
selection.  I'm not saying anything about the existance of God, but he certainly
isn't needed to explain how this sort of complex life arises.  The theory of how
life arose on earth in the first place and how it has reached its present state
is actually very developed.
But your basic point I'd like to address because it's a common misconception. 
Actually, evolution, and life on earth, does not always exhibit a flawless
design.  Of course things like vision are miraculously complicated, however the
notion that these designs are so perfect the bear the hallmarks of the divine
doesn't hold with an examination of how life, and evolution, really works. 
Evolution simply works with what it has to adapt to the new selective pressures
in the environment.  Frequently, the results are clumsy.  And in these clumsy
solutions created by nature, you find reason to believe that no, this is not all
some perfect design.
To use a common example there is a great article by Steven Gould called The
Panda's Thumb in which he discusses in biological terms the 'thumb', or apparent
sixth digit which panda bears have, and use to manipulate bamboo, almost as we
use opposable thumbs.  But it's not actually a thumb at all, but a clumsy
extension of the seismoid bone which builds on a structure already present in
other bears.  It works, but it's no opposable thumb!  In nature, you can see
this theme all around, structures that used to serve one purpose are now adapted
for another, clumsily made to work, sometimes in designs that would turn an
engineer's stomach.  The concept that they were all designed by a divine,
flawless engineer seems actually quite ridiculous.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
bo dark
2007-08-06 00:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist, when the various
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
Well, it's not chance that brings about the order you see in complex modern life
like us mammals. It's hundreds of millions of years of evolution driven by
selection. I'm not saying anything about the existance of God, but he certainly
isn't needed to explain how this sort of complex life arises. The theory of how
life arose on earth in the first place and how it has reached its present state
is actually very developed.
But your basic point I'd like to address because it's a common misconception.
Actually, evolution, and life on earth, does not always exhibit a flawless
design. Of course things like vision are miraculously complicated, however the
notion that these designs are so perfect the bear the hallmarks of the divine
doesn't hold with an examination of how life, and evolution, really works.
Evolution simply works with what it has to adapt to the new selective pressures
in the environment. Frequently, the results are clumsy. And in these clumsy
solutions created by nature, you find reason to believe that no, this is not all
some perfect design.
To use a common example there is a great article by Steven Gould called The
Panda's Thumb in which he discusses in biological terms the 'thumb', or apparent
sixth digit which panda bears have, and use to manipulate bamboo, almost as we
use opposable thumbs. But it's not actually a thumb at all, but a clumsy
extension of the seismoid bone which builds on a structure already present in
other bears. It works, but it's no opposable thumb! In nature, you can see
this theme all around, structures that used to serve one purpose are now adapted
for another, clumsily made to work, sometimes in designs that would turn an
engineer's stomach. The concept that they were all designed by a divine,
flawless engineer seems actually quite ridiculous.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
To use a common example there is a great article by Steven Gould called The
Panda's Thumb in which he discusses in biological terms the 'thumb',
or apparent
sixth digit which panda bears have, and use to manipulate bamboo,
almost as we
use opposable thumbs. But it's not actually a thumb at all, but a
clumsy
extension of the seismoid bone which builds on a structure already
present in
other bears.



maybe they just don't have a name for this extension,or want one,the
fact that they have this amongst other things makes them different
from other bears.does this translate to humans?does one group of
humans have a physical difference from other humans in structure?

if there was a pronounced difference in humans,say intelligence or
physical superiority would a person like mr.gould be willing to use it
as an example?who appeared first,the panda bear or man?how much DNA
does the panda and man share?do panda bears discuss religion or
philosophy,have apes and monkeys evolved to their fullest extent?has
evolution become static?
Post by ruylopez
Evolution simply works with what it has to adapt to the new
selective pressures
in the environment.


what would these pressures have been?does anyone know the exact
pressure that caused evolutionary change in the various species?
ruylopez
2007-08-06 02:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by bo dark
maybe they just don't have a name for this extension,or want one,the
fact that they have this amongst other things makes them different
from other bears.does this translate to humans?does one group of
humans have a physical difference from other humans in structure?
No, pandas are a different species than those other bears. 
Post by bo dark
if there was a pronounced difference in humans,say intelligence or
physical superiority would a person like mr.gould be willing to use it
as an example?
No, the point is showing how a characteristic from an evolutionary anscestor is
modified to fit a new need.  Humans are not evolutionary anscestors of each
other.
Post by bo dark
who appeared first,the panda bear or man?how much DNA
does the panda and man share?do panda bears discuss religion or
philosophy,have apes and monkeys evolved to their fullest extent?has
evolution become static?
Not sure what you are getting at here.  Evolution never stops, it will continue
long after we're done, presumably on Earth until the sun undergoes major changes
in about 4.5 billion years and life on Earth probably stops.
Post by bo dark
what would these pressures have been?does anyone know the exact
pressure that caused evolutionary change in the various species?
The pressures are stuff like, lets say some bear has his radial seismoid bone
abnormally separated from the rest of his hand.  Let's say that this difference
is heritable.  Let's say that it gives the bear an advantage over other bears in
terms of how efficiently it is able to aquire food, and thus reproduce.  As time
goes by this trait therefore becomes more common in the population.  Of long
periods of time and genetic isolation from other bear populations these changes
add up and eventually you have a totally new species.

The point he is making is that evolution does not create new structures ideally,
and out of the clear blue, as a divine creator would.  Rather it clumsily
tinkers and modifies existing structures to fit new roles.  Darwin spent a lot
of time studying orchids and pointing out many of the same things.  His
contemporaries had no idea what he was doing.  But it's exactly in these sorts
of designs that we can find the most convincing evidence that 'intelligent
design' arguement is flawed.



_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
JohnnyYooper
2007-08-06 03:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Not sure what you are getting at here. Evolution never stops, it will continue
long after we're done, presumably on Earth until the sun undergoes major changes
in about 4.5 billion years and life on Earth probably stops.
Post by bo dark
what would these pressures have been?does anyone know the exact
pressure that caused evolutionary change in the various species?
The pressures are stuff like, lets say some bear has his radial seismoid bone
abnormally separated from the rest of his hand. Let's say that this difference
is heritable. Let's say that it gives the bear an advantage over other bears in
terms of how efficiently it is able to aquire food, and thus reproduce. As time
goes by this trait therefore becomes more common in the population. Of long
periods of time and genetic isolation from other bear populations these changes
add up and eventually you have a totally new species.
The point he is making is that evolution does not create new structures ideally,
and out of the clear blue, as a divine creator would. Rather it clumsily
tinkers and modifies existing structures to fit new roles. Darwin spent a lot
of time studying orchids and pointing out many of the same things. His
contemporaries had no idea what he was doing. But it's exactly in these sorts
of designs that we can find the most convincing evidence that 'intelligent
design' arguement is flawed.
dayam! look at the big brain on brad! pretty good explanation there,
mr ruylopez
bo dark
2007-08-06 04:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by bo dark
maybe they just don't have a name for this extension,or want one,the
fact that they have this amongst other things makes them different
from other bears.does this translate to humans?does one group of
humans have a physical difference from other humans in structure?
No, pandas are a different species than those other bears.
Post by bo dark
if there was a pronounced difference in humans,say intelligence or
physical superiority would a person like mr.gould be willing to use it
as an example?
No, the point is showing how a characteristic from an evolutionary anscestor is
modified to fit a new need. Humans are not evolutionary anscestors of each
other.
Post by bo dark
who appeared first,the panda bear or man?how much DNA
does the panda and man share?do panda bears discuss religion or
philosophy,have apes and monkeys evolved to their fullest extent?has
evolution become static?
Not sure what you are getting at here. Evolution never stops, it will continue
long after we're done, presumably on Earth until the sun undergoes major changes
in about 4.5 billion years and life on Earth probably stops.
Post by bo dark
what would these pressures have been?does anyone know the exact
pressure that caused evolutionary change in the various species?
The pressures are stuff like, lets say some bear has his radial seismoid bone
abnormally separated from the rest of his hand. Let's say that this difference
is heritable. Let's say that it gives the bear an advantage over other bears in
terms of how efficiently it is able to aquire food, and thus reproduce. As time
goes by this trait therefore becomes more common in the population. Of long
periods of time and genetic isolation from other bear populations these changes
add up and eventually you have a totally new species.
The point he is making is that evolution does not create new structures ideally,
and out of the clear blue, as a divine creator would. Rather it clumsily
tinkers and modifies existing structures to fit new roles. Darwin spent a lot
of time studying orchids and pointing out many of the same things. His
contemporaries had no idea what he was doing. But it's exactly in these sorts
of designs that we can find the most convincing evidence that 'intelligent
design' arguement is flawed.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
thanks for your response ruy,i'm having a hard time with a single
accident precipatating a gentic trait.it would be like a mill worker
losing a finger then his children being born without the same finger.i
think its a never ending debate.
ruylopez
2007-08-06 05:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by bo dark
thanks for your response ruy,i'm having a hard time with a single
accident precipatating a gentic trait.it would be like a mill worker
losing a finger then his children being born without the same finger.i
think its a never ending debate.
The 'accidents' of which you speak aren't anything like losing your finger in a
mill, they are mutations of genetic material.  The whole system is founded on
heritable variation .. the train must be inherited! or it can't be subject to
evolution by natural selection.  Losing your finger to an industrial accident
doesn't count - but being born with an extra finger, and being able to pass that
trait on to your offspring, does.

Evolution does not act on individuals.  Individuals do not evolve.  Populations
evolve.


_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
bo dark
2007-08-06 06:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by bo dark
thanks for your response ruy,i'm having a hard time with a single
accident precipatating a gentic trait.it would be like a mill worker
losing a finger then his children being born without the same finger.i
think its a never ending debate.
The 'accidents' of which you speak aren't anything like losing your finger in a
mill, they are mutations of genetic material. The whole system is founded on
heritable variation .. the train must be inherited! or it can't be subject to
evolution by natural selection. Losing your finger to an industrial accident
doesn't count - but being born with an extra finger, and being able to pass that
trait on to your offspring, does.
Evolution does not act on individuals. Individuals do not evolve. Populations
evolve.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
i thought the panda bear example given by gould was a poor one.it
seems the panda developed an extension of one of it's digits in order
to grab a hold of bamboo stalks,this seems more like adaptation more
than evolution.like developing a callus.

then theres the whole speciation thing.
Bob T.
2007-08-06 14:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by bo dark
Post by ruylopez
Post by bo dark
thanks for your response ruy,i'm having a hard time with a single
accident precipatating a gentic trait.it would be like a mill worker
losing a finger then his children being born without the same finger.i
think its a never ending debate.
The 'accidents' of which you speak aren't anything like losing your finger in a
mill, they are mutations of genetic material. The whole system is founded on
heritable variation .. the train must be inherited! or it can't be subject to
evolution by natural selection. Losing your finger to an industrial accident
doesn't count - but being born with an extra finger, and being able to pass that
trait on to your offspring, does.
Evolution does not act on individuals. Individuals do not evolve. Populations
evolve.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
i thought the panda bear example given by gould was a poor one.it
seems the panda developed an extension of one of it's digits in order
to grab a hold of bamboo stalks,this seems more like adaptation more
than evolution.like developing a callus.
When a species "adapts", it is called "evolution".
Post by bo dark
then theres the whole speciation thing.
You really need to stop believing Creationist propaganda. What is it
about the well-understood process of speciation that bothers you?
Take polar bears, for example (from Wikipedia):

"The raccoon and bear families are believed to have diverged about 30
million years ago. The spectacled bear split from other bears around
13 million years ago. The six distinct ursine species originated some
4 million years ago. According to both fossil and DNA evidence, the
polar bear diverged from the brown bear roughly 200 thousand years
ago; fossils show that between 10 and 20 thousand years ago the polar
bear's molar teeth changed significantly from those of the brown bear.

Polar bears have, however, bred with brown bears to produce fertile
grizzly-polar bear hybrids,[13] [14] suggesting that the two are close
relatives. But neither species can survive long in the other's niche,
and with distinctly different morphology, metabolism, social and
feeding behaviors, and other phenotypic characters, the two bears are
generally classified as separate species.

In a widely cited paper published in 1996, a comparison of the DNA of
various brown bear populations showed that the brown bears of Alaska's
ABC islands shared a more recent common ancestor with polar bears than
with any other brown bear population in the world.[15] Also to see how
the bear species once split yet are still connected, polar bears still
have HIT (hibernation induction trigger) in their blood, but they also
utilize this to hibernate as the brown bear does. They may
occasionally enter a dormant state referred to as "denning" (pregnant
females in particular), though their body temperature does not
decrease during this period as it would for a typical mammal in
hibernation.[16]"

In other words, polar bears are a good example of a recent speciation
event.

- Bob T.
Post by bo dark
- Show quoted text -
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-06 03:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist, when the various
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
Well, it's not chance that brings about the order you see in complex modern life
like us mammals. It's hundreds of millions of years of evolution driven by
selection. I'm not saying anything about the existance of God, but he certainly
isn't needed to explain how this sort of complex life arises. The theory of how
life arose on earth in the first place and how it has reached its present state
is actually very developed.
But your basic point I'd like to address because it's a common misconception.
Actually, evolution, and life on earth, does not always exhibit a flawless
design. Of course things like vision are miraculously complicated, however the
notion that these designs are so perfect the bear the hallmarks of the divine
doesn't hold with an examination of how life, and evolution, really works.
Evolution simply works with what it has to adapt to the new selective pressures
in the environment. Frequently, the results are clumsy. And in these clumsy
solutions created by nature, you find reason to believe that no, this is not all
some perfect design.
To use a common example there is a great article by Steven Gould called The
Panda's Thumb in which he discusses in biological terms the 'thumb', or apparent
sixth digit which panda bears have, and use to manipulate bamboo, almost as we
use opposable thumbs. But it's not actually a thumb at all, but a clumsy
extension of the seismoid bone which builds on a structure already present in
other bears. It works, but it's no opposable thumb! In nature, you can see
this theme all around, structures that used to serve one purpose are now adapted
for another, clumsily made to work, sometimes in designs that would turn an
engineer's stomach. The concept that they were all designed by a divine,
flawless engineer seems actually quite ridiculous.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
JEH...And what I think you "scientific" musings overlook is the the
single cell, before it cooperates with other cells to make a life
system exist, must first decide, intelligently, what it needs to
accomplish, and what must be done to accomplish that next thing.

Such intelligent decision-making cannot evolve.
Bob T.
2007-08-06 03:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by ruylopez
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist, when the various
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
Well, it's not chance that brings about the order you see in complex modern life
like us mammals. It's hundreds of millions of years of evolution driven by
selection. I'm not saying anything about the existance of God, but he certainly
isn't needed to explain how this sort of complex life arises. The theory of how
life arose on earth in the first place and how it has reached its present state
is actually very developed.
But your basic point I'd like to address because it's a common misconception.
Actually, evolution, and life on earth, does not always exhibit a flawless
design. Of course things like vision are miraculously complicated, however the
notion that these designs are so perfect the bear the hallmarks of the divine
doesn't hold with an examination of how life, and evolution, really works.
Evolution simply works with what it has to adapt to the new selective pressures
in the environment. Frequently, the results are clumsy. And in these clumsy
solutions created by nature, you find reason to believe that no, this is not all
some perfect design.
To use a common example there is a great article by Steven Gould called The
Panda's Thumb in which he discusses in biological terms the 'thumb', or apparent
sixth digit which panda bears have, and use to manipulate bamboo, almost as we
use opposable thumbs. But it's not actually a thumb at all, but a clumsy
extension of the seismoid bone which builds on a structure already present in
other bears. It works, but it's no opposable thumb! In nature, you can see
this theme all around, structures that used to serve one purpose are now adapted
for another, clumsily made to work, sometimes in designs that would turn an
engineer's stomach. The concept that they were all designed by a divine,
flawless engineer seems actually quite ridiculous.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
JEH...And what I think you "scientific" musings overlook is the the
single cell, before it cooperates with other cells to make a life
system exist, must first decide, intelligently, what it needs to
accomplish, and what must be done to accomplish that next thing.
You don't understand anything about evolution at all, do you? There
are no "decisions" in evolution. Take the infamous bug that looks like
a stick, for example. Did that insect's ancestors ever "decide" to
look like a stick? Of course not. What happened was that insects
that were harder for birds to see passed their genes along to the next
generation more often than insects with less effective camoflage.
After thousands and thousands of generations, the descendants of those
insects looked very much like sticks.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Such intelligent decision-making cannot evolve.
You really should not pontificate on subjects that you do not
understand in the slightest.

- Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
- Show quoted text -
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-06 16:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist, when the various
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
Well, it's not chance that brings about the order you see in complex modern life
like us mammals. It's hundreds of millions of years of evolution driven by
selection.
JEH...What drives or guides or influences this initial selection
process? Is it chance? Is it happenstance? Or is it intelligent
choice? That is the question...
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
I'm not saying anything about the existance of God, but he certainly
Post by ruylopez
isn't needed to explain how this sort of complex life arises.
JEH...Then you believe the critical events in any biological system,
at key interesections of evolutionary selection, come about as the
result of trial and error adjustments made in the course of the
evolutionary path?

If so, and if we all were borne of the Big Bang, before which there
was nothing, I would think that you would believe therefore that the
initial cell cooperations of any or all cooperating cell systems, were
intiated from nothing.... but that somehow all subsequent iterations
were instigated by natural selection.

Give me a heads-up. I am interested in how you manage to maintain
this apparent conflict of theories.
Post by ruylopez
The theory of how
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
life arose on earth in the first place and how it has reached its present state
is actually very developed.
JEH...Devloped enough to explain how early periods show no fossil
remains, that a certain period shows an extraordinary explosion of new
life forms followed by periods showing fossils in evolutionary order?

Perhaps you can explain this archolilogical history...
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
But your basic point I'd like to address because it's a common misconception.
Actually, evolution, and life on earth, does not always exhibit a flawless
design. Of course things like vision are miraculously complicated, however the
notion that these designs are so perfect the bear the hallmarks of the divine
doesn't hold with an examination of how life, and evolution, really works.
Evolution simply works with what it has to adapt to the new selective pressures
in the environment.
JEH...But what comes before evolution???


<Frequently, the results are clumsy. And in these clumsy
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
solutions created by nature,
JEH..."created by nature"? Is that another way of saying God?
Post by ruylopez
you find reason to believe that no, this is not all
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
some perfect design.
To use a common example there is a great article by Steven Gould called The
Panda's Thumb in which he discusses in biological terms the 'thumb', or apparent
sixth digit which panda bears have, and use to manipulate bamboo, almost as we
use opposable thumbs. But it's not actually a thumb at all, but a clumsy
extension of the seismoid bone which builds on a structure already present in
other bears. It works, but it's no opposable thumb! In nature, you can see
this theme all around, structures that used to serve one purpose are now adapted
for another, clumsily made to work, sometimes in designs that would turn an
engineer's stomach. The concept that they were all designed by a divine,
flawless engineer seems actually quite ridiculous.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
JEH...And what I think you "scientific" musings overlook is the the
single cell, before it cooperates with other cells to make a life
system exist, must first decide, intelligently, what it needs to
accomplish, and what must be done to accomplish that next thing.
You don't understand anything about evolution at all, do you? There
are no "decisions" in evolution. Take the infamous bug that looks like
a stick, for example. Did that insect's ancestors ever "decide" to
look like a stick? Of course not. What happened was that insects
that were harder for birds to see passed their genes along to the next
generation more often than insects with less effective camoflage.
After thousands and thousands of generations, the descendants of those
insects looked very much like sticks.
Post by ruylopez
Such intelligent decision-making cannot evolve.
Bob T.
2007-08-06 17:31:13 UTC
Permalink
(actually the quotes below aren't mine, they were written by
ruylopez. I would be happy to take credit for them, though, because I
agree with him completely) - Bob T.
<snip>
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
Well, it's not chance that brings about the order you see in complex modern life
like us mammals. It's hundreds of millions of years of evolution driven by
selection.
JEH...What drives or guides or influences this initial selection
process? Is it chance? Is it happenstance? Or is it intelligent
choice? That is the question...
This has been explained to you before. Evolution, like poker, has an
element of chance. But it's not "chance" that that some people win
money consistently and others lose consistently. Evolution is shaped
by the enviornment acting on a pool of genetic differences. Take
polar bears again - it is not by "chance" that polar bears are white.
White bears blend in with the ice and snow, giving them a hunting
advantage over darker bears. When brown bears first migrated into the
Arctic, some of the bears had lighter fur than other bear, and after a
number of generations only the genes for white fur remained in the
gene pool.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
I'm not saying anything about the existance of God, but he certainly
Post by ruylopez
isn't needed to explain how this sort of complex life arises.
JEH...Then you believe the critical events in any biological system,
at key interesections of evolutionary selection, come about as the
result of trial and error adjustments made in the course of the
evolutionary path?
Basically, yes. The trial is whether or not a living thing survives
and reproduces. All of us are descended from a long line of living
things that survived long enough to reproduce. The errors left no
descendants.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
If so, and if we all were borne of the Big Bang, before which there
was nothing, I would think that you would believe therefore that the
initial cell cooperations of any or all cooperating cell systems, were
intiated from nothing.... but that somehow all subsequent iterations
were instigated by natural selection.
The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Give me a heads-up. I am interested in how you manage to maintain
this apparent conflict of theories.
The conflict is only in your head.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by ruylopez
The theory of how
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
life arose on earth in the first place and how it has reached its present state
is actually very developed.
JEH...Devloped enough to explain how early periods show no fossil
remains, that a certain period shows an extraordinary explosion of new
life forms followed by periods showing fossils in evolutionary order?
Yes, scientists have a good understanding for the fossil record.
There is nothing in the fossil record that contradicts the Theory of
Evolution.

<snip>

- Bob T.
ruylopez
2007-08-06 05:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...And what I think you "scientific" musings overlook is the the
single cell, before it cooperates with other cells to make a life
system exist, must first decide, intelligently, what it needs to
accomplish, and what must be done to accomplish that next thing.
Such intelligent decision-making cannot evolve.
Sure it can.

First off it's rather a misnomer to call that intelligence.  Are single cells
intelligent?  Certainly not, but they're capable of specializing in this way. 
For example every cell in your body has all the DNA needed to run any sort of
cell, yet your cells somehow know if they are liver cells or brain cells or bone
marrow cells and they do what they need to do.  This isn't because they are
'intelligent', but because the action of genes are regulated by all sorts of
different chemical factors. 

Of course it evolves!  Multicellular organisms evolve from unicellular ones.  A
bunch of unicellular organisms, for example, evolve together in a relatively
stable environment, and develop specialized functions that are mutually
benefial.  Over time, it becomes one organism.  The evidence for this stuff is
all over, right down to the molecular level, where you can see in eukaryotic
cells organelles which look like the prokaryotic cells from which they are
derived, and even in the way modern DNA based life still uses RNA in daily work
and even in replicated DNA.  The science is there I assure you!  It most
certainly can, and did! happen.



_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-06 16:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...And what I think you "scientific" musings overlook is the the
single cell, before it cooperates with other cells to make a life
system exist, must first decide, intelligently, what it needs to
accomplish, and what must be done to accomplish that next thing.
Such intelligent decision-making cannot evolve.
Sure it can.
First off it's rather a misnomer to call that intelligence. Are single cells
intelligent?
JEH...Anything that chooses to do this rather than that, gets my vote
as intelligence.
Post by ruylopez
Certainly not, but they're capable of specializing in this way.
For example every cell in your body has all the DNA needed to run any sort of
cell, yet your cells somehow know
JEH...How do unintelligent cells "somehow know" what's in their best
interest??
Post by ruylopez
if they are liver cells or brain cells or bone
marrow cells and they do what they need to do. This isn't because they are
'intelligent', but because the action of genes are regulated by all sorts of
different chemical factors.
JEH...And how were these chemical factors chosen among all available
chemical factors? By chance? By happenstance? or by intelligence?
Post by ruylopez
Of course it evolves! Multicellular organisms evolve from unicellular ones.
JEH... How do two unilateral cells decide to cooperate? Is that
decision made by chance.. This is the key to your faith the science of
evoution (just another, perhaps more learned religion?). How does
evolution go from nothing to something to something living? How can
that happen by chance or happenstance?
Post by ruylopez
A
bunch of unicellular organisms, for example, evolve together in a relatively
stable environment, and develop specialized functions that are mutually
benefial. Over time, it becomes one organism. The evidence for this stuff is
all over, right down to the molecular level, where you can see in eukaryotic
cells organelles which look like the prokaryotic cells from which they are
derived, and even in the way modern DNA based life still uses RNA in daily work
and even in replicated DNA. The science is there I assure you! It most
certainly can, and did! happen.
JEH... And your faith, call it the religion of evolutionary science,
believes all of life all came from nothing?

Good luck with that idea.. You have to be really, really smart to
believe that..
Post by ruylopez
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
Bob T.
2007-08-06 17:39:03 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by j***@earthlink.net
A bunch of unicellular organisms, for example, evolve together in a relatively
stable environment, and develop specialized functions that are mutually
benefial. Over time, it becomes one organism. The evidence for this stuff is
all over, right down to the molecular level, where you can see in eukaryotic
cells organelles which look like the prokaryotic cells from which they are
derived, and even in the way modern DNA based life still uses RNA in daily work
and even in replicated DNA. The science is there I assure you! It most
certainly can, and did! happen.
JEH... And your faith, call it the religion of evolutionary science,
believes all of life all came from nothing?
No, let's not call it faith or religion. Evolutionary science is no
more religious than chemistry.

The Theory of Evolution does not say where life came from. Evolution
describes how species change over time. The study of the origins of
life is called "abiogenesis". Many Christians believe that God is the
original source of life, after which evolution proceeded as we have
observed. Some Christians believe that God has perhaps stepped in and
nudged the evolutionary process from time to time to get the results
that He preferred.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Good luck with that idea.. You have to be really, really smart to
believe that..
Only compared to some.

- Bob T.
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-06 23:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob T.
- Bob T.
<snip>
Post by j***@earthlink.net
A bunch of unicellular organisms, for example, evolve together in a relatively
stable environment, and develop specialized functions that are mutually
benefial. Over time, it becomes one organism. The evidence for this stuff is
all over, right down to the molecular level, where you can see in eukaryotic
cells organelles which look like the prokaryotic cells from which they are
derived, and even in the way modern DNA based life still uses RNA in daily work
and even in replicated DNA. The science is there I assure you! It most
certainly can, and did! happen.
JEH... And your faith, call it the religion of evolutionary science,
believes all of life all came from nothing?
No, let's not call it faith or religion. Evolutionary science is no
more religious than chemistry.
The Theory of Evolution does not say where life came from.
JEH...Now, you seem to argue that evolution itself has no origin...
You seem to be studiously avoiding addressing your opinion as to the
basis for the emergence of life, which point is my central question,
how does a unilateral cell choose the cell it needs (by chance? or
intelligent design?)..
Post by Bob T.
Evolution
describes how species change over time.
JEH... Duh?..Somethings do not have to be expressed.


(snipped)
Post by Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Good luck with that idea.. You have to be really, really smart to
believe that..
Only compared to some.
- Bob T.
JEH...That last shot proves you are not above smartly flouting your
sense of your superiority at someone you consider inferior...

But, instead, why not try using some of that supposed superiority to
answer the thread's question, how did the initial cooperating cells of
any or all of the life systems on our planet, manage to initiate life
by accident or happenstance, and having done so only during a narrow
period of our earth's existence and nowhere on any other planet in the
sky?

The record shows a rush of initial life forms during a narrow sliver
of earth's history. If that is so, why did it happen? Why hasn't it
happened over and over again? With more planets in the sky than grains
of sand on the world's beaches, why our planet? If by chance alone,
why haven't we seen life on some other planet? Even one would be
enough. Can you point to any planet other than ours that have
developed life forms?

And why was it that there is a specific time-frame in the earth's
history, when the bulk of earth's lifeform initiations occurred...Why
not in later periods? And who or what selected that sliver of earth's
time? You seem so certain you know it all...I would like to hear your
answer.

You speak of the scientists' demand for demonstrable proof of any
assertion...

Assert to us here what you believe happened at the initiation of
life...


I see the position (chance fusings of molecular debris that initiate
life) as every bit an act of belief as would make any religionist
proud, being totally absent sound scientific proof, and not being
repeatable in a lab.
Bob T.
2007-08-07 00:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by Bob T.
- Bob T.
<snip>
Post by j***@earthlink.net
A bunch of unicellular organisms, for example, evolve together in a relatively
stable environment, and develop specialized functions that are mutually
benefial. Over time, it becomes one organism. The evidence for this stuff is
all over, right down to the molecular level, where you can see in eukaryotic
cells organelles which look like the prokaryotic cells from which they are
derived, and even in the way modern DNA based life still uses RNA in daily work
and even in replicated DNA. The science is there I assure you! It most
certainly can, and did! happen.
JEH... And your faith, call it the religion of evolutionary science,
believes all of life all came from nothing?
No, let's not call it faith or religion. Evolutionary science is no
more religious than chemistry.
The Theory of Evolution does not say where life came from.
JEH...Now, you seem to argue that evolution itself has no origin...
You seem to be studiously avoiding addressing your opinion as to the
basis for the emergence of life, which point is my central question,
how does a unilateral cell choose the cell it needs (by chance? or
intelligent design?)..
You seem to have typed your "central question" in such a hurry that it
doesn't make any sense.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by Bob T.
Evolution
describes how species change over time.
JEH... Duh?..Somethings do not have to be expressed.
(snipped)
Post by Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Good luck with that idea.. You have to be really, really smart to
believe that..
Only compared to some.
- Bob T.
JEH...That last shot proves you are not above smartly flouting your
sense of your superiority at someone you consider inferior...
But, instead, why not try using some of that supposed superiority to
answer the thread's question, how did the initial cooperating cells of
any or all of the life systems on our planet, manage to initiate life
by accident or happenstance, and having done so only during a narrow
period of our earth's existence and nowhere on any other planet in the
sky?
The difficulty in answering your questions is that you know so little
about the topic that your questions don't really make sense. Here you
seem to be talking about two completely different things: the very
beginning of life, and the emergence of multi-cellular life forms.
The former subject is called "abiogenesis": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis.

If you are talking about the appearance of multi-cellular life,
scientists today have learned a lot about it by studying both single
and multi celled creatures. There are creatures alive today that are
extemely simple and yet multi-celled. There are other creatures that
are slightly more complex, etc. etc. By studying these living things
we can see how the process of evolution proceeds gradually step by
step.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
The record shows a rush of initial life forms during a narrow sliver
of earth's history. If that is so, why did it happen?
You are presumably speaking of the Cambrian Explosion, which was early
in the history of multi-cellular life forms. The general explanation
is that certain forms of life had passed a threshold that enabled them
to become much larger and more complex than any living thing before.
When that happened, a vast number of ecological niches opened up that
had never been exploited before.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Why hasn't it happened over and over again?
Because the ecological niches are already filled more competitively
with existing species.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
With more planets in the sky than grains
of sand on the world's beaches, why our planet? If by chance alone,
why haven't we seen life on some other planet? Even one would be
enough. Can you point to any planet other than ours that have
developed life forms?
Other than Earth, how many planets have been visited by humans? None,
unless you count our airless moon. One, if you count our robots on
Mars. There are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of
other galaxies. Even if life is quite rare, there would be millions
of planets with life on them.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
And why was it that there is a specific time-frame in the earth's
history, when the bulk of earth's lifeform initiations occurred...Why
not in later periods? And who or what selected that sliver of earth's
time? You seem so certain you know it all...I would like to hear your
answer.
The process of evolution has proceeded for the entire history of life
on this planet. You seem to be confused by the fact that at one
particular time, life became large enough and complex enough to leave
fossils behind.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
You speak of the scientists' demand for demonstrable proof of any
assertion...
Assert to us here what you believe happened at the initiation of
life...
I don't know how life began on this planet. Read the article on
abiogenesis if you want to learn what scientists think might have
happened. We may never know for sure - it was a very very very long
time ago, and the first life forms were very very very small. As I
have said before, many Christians believe that God created life on
Earth four billion years ago, then waited patiently for humans to
appear, just as He had planned.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
I see the position (chance fusings of molecular debris that initiate
life) as every bit an act of belief as would make any religionist
proud, being totally absent sound scientific proof, and not being
repeatable in a lab.
What a stupid concept.

- Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
- Show quoted text -
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-07 01:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by Bob T.
- Bob T.
<snip>
Post by j***@earthlink.net
A bunch of unicellular organisms, for example, evolve together in a relatively
stable environment, and develop specialized functions that are mutually
benefial. Over time, it becomes one organism. The evidence for this stuff is
all over, right down to the molecular level, where you can see in eukaryotic
cells organelles which look like the prokaryotic cells from which they are
derived, and even in the way modern DNA based life still uses RNA in daily work
and even in replicated DNA. The science is there I assure you! It most
certainly can, and did! happen.
JEH... And your faith, call it the religion of evolutionary science,
believes all of life all came from nothing?
No, let's not call it faith or religion. Evolutionary science is no
more religious than chemistry.
The Theory of Evolution does not say where life came from.
JEH...Now, you seem to argue that evolution itself has no origin...
You seem to be studiously avoiding addressing your opinion as to the
basis for the emergence of life, which point is my central question,
how does a unilateral cell choose the cell it needs (by chance? or
intelligent design?)..
You seem to have typed your "central question" in such a hurry that it
doesn't make any sense.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by Bob T.
Evolution
describes how species change over time.
JEH... Duh?..Somethings do not have to be expressed.
(snipped)
Post by Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Good luck with that idea.. You have to be really, really smart to
believe that..
Only compared to some.
- Bob T.
JEH...That last shot proves you are not above smartly flouting your
sense of your superiority at someone you consider inferior...
But, instead, why not try using some of that supposed superiority to
answer the thread's question, how did the initial cooperating cells of
any or all of the life systems on our planet, manage to initiate life
by accident or happenstance, and having done so only during a narrow
period of our earth's existence and nowhere on any other planet in the
sky?
The difficulty in answering your questions is that you know so little
about the topic that your questions don't really make sense. Here you
seem to be talking about two completely different things: the very
beginning of life, and the emergence of multi-cellular life forms.
The former subject is called "abiogenesis":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis.
If you are talking about the appearance of multi-cellular life,
scientists today have learned a lot about it by studying both single
and multi celled creatures. There are creatures alive today that are
extemely simple and yet multi-celled. There are other creatures that
are slightly more complex, etc. etc. By studying these living things
we can see how the process of evolution proceeds gradually step by
step.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
The record shows a rush of initial life forms during a narrow sliver
of earth's history. If that is so, why did it happen?
You are presumably speaking of the Cambrian Explosion, which was early
in the history of multi-cellular life forms. The general explanation
is that certain forms of life had passed a threshold that enabled them
to become much larger and more complex than any living thing before.
When that happened, a vast number of ecological niches opened up that
had never been exploited before.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Why hasn't it happened over and over again?
Because the ecological niches are already filled more competitively
with existing species.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
With more planets in the sky than grains
of sand on the world's beaches, why our planet? If by chance alone,
why haven't we seen life on some other planet? Even one would be
enough. Can you point to any planet other than ours that have
developed life forms?
Other than Earth, how many planets have been visited by humans? None,
unless you count our airless moon. One, if you count our robots on
Mars. There are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of
other galaxies. Even if life is quite rare, there would be millions
of planets with life on them.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
And why was it that there is a specific time-frame in the earth's
history, when the bulk of earth's lifeform initiations occurred...Why
not in later periods? And who or what selected that sliver of earth's
time? You seem so certain you know it all...I would like to hear your
answer.
The process of evolution has proceeded for the entire history of life
on this planet. You seem to be confused by the fact that at one
particular time, life became large enough and complex enough to leave
fossils behind.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
You speak of the scientists' demand for demonstrable proof of any
assertion...
Assert to us here what you believe happened at the initiation of
life...
I don't know how life began on this planet. Read the article on
abiogenesis if you want to learn what scientists think might have
happened. We may never know for sure - it was a very very very long
time ago, and the first life forms were very very very small. As I
have said before, many Christians believe that God created life on
Earth four billion years ago, then waited patiently for humans to
appear, just as He had planned.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
I see the position (chance fusings of molecular debris that initiate
life) as every bit an act of belief as would make any religionist
proud, being totally absent sound scientific proof, and not being
repeatable in a lab.
What a stupid concept.
- Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ruylopez
2007-08-07 02:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
The record shows a rush of initial life forms during a narrow sliver
of earth's history. If that is so, why did it happen?
You are presumably speaking of the Cambrian Explosion, which was early
in the history of multi-cellular life forms. The general explanation
is that certain forms of life had passed a threshold that enabled them
to become much larger and more complex than any living thing before.
When that happened, a vast number of ecological niches opened up that
had never been exploited before.
It's hard to tell what he's talking about here.  The Cambrian Explosion refers
to the massive radiation of animals and increase in diversity of life on Earth
which began about 500-600 million years ago.  The reasons for this are no fully
understood, there are several hypotheses, I think the leading one is that it's
connected to a large increase in atmospheric oxygen.  There was, actually no
oxygen free in the atmosphere at all until photosynthetic organisms arrived in
the ocean first filling the ocean with oxygen to the point of saturation and
then it spilled out into the atmosphere.  This allowed for respiration and a
whole new slew of life forms.

However, this is not a rush of 'initial life forms' early in Earth's history. 
Life on earth goes back something like 4 billion years.  I dunno wtf he's
talking about, there also was a major radiation of mammals about 65 million
years ago following the demise of the dinosaurs.  This is a case of mammals
filling all the niches that reptiles were no longer there to fill.  These sorts
of major extinction / radiation events are relatively common, in fact we are
smack in the middle of a major extinction event right now (caused entirely by
humans) and I'm sure an interesting radiation event will occur once we're done
annihilating everything.
Post by Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Why hasn't it happened over and over again?
It does, see what I wrote above, or what Bob wrote below.
Post by Bob T.
Because the ecological niches are already filled more competitively
with existing species.
For what JEH says is apparently the 'central question' of this thread:
"
how did the initial cooperating cells of
any or all of the life systems on our planet, manage to initiate life
by accident or happenstance, and having done so only during a narrow
period of our earth's existence and nowhere on any other planet in the"
sky?It's kind of hard to explain to you how life might have arisen spontaneously
on Earth without getting very technical.  Phosphlipid bilayers, which form the
membranes for cells, can form spontaneously in water due to their physical
construction - they are formed of molecules which are partially water-phobic and
the other half is attracted to water.  Therefore they tend to line up in a ring
in water, on their own.  Look up 'Protobionts' if you're bored to learn how
these things can spontaneously form (this has been done in a lab).  Then you
need some basic organic materials, carbon based chemistry, amino acids to be
produced.  Again, this has been done in labs, but we're not exactly sure what
the atmosphere was like back there, and this is all theory at this point.  But
it's not happenstance, or chance, or luck, or anything like that.

Water is a requirement for life as we know it, and that obviously limits the
planets where this can occur.  In fact we know of no other planet that has the
necessary conditions to raise life as we know it.  As far as why this doesn't
continue happening?  Nowadays if any tiny organic molecule is spontaneously
formed, it will be nearly immediately consumed by some form of life already on
this planet.  There won't be time for hundreds of millions of years to pass for
the one protobiont in the ocea to eventually develop into complex life.


"
And why was it that there is a specific time-frame in the earth's
history, when the bulk of earth's lifeform initiations occurred...Why
not in later periods? And who or what selected that sliver of earth's
time? You seem so certain you know it all...I would like to hear your
answer."What are you talking about, exactly?  If you get more specific you can
get an answer, what sliver?  Life on earth appeared nearly immediately after big
pieces of the solar system finally stopped crashing into the nubile earth. 
Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, life on earth about 4.  It took a great
deal of time for life to radiate outword.  It took photosynthetic organisms to
populate the atmosphere with oxygen, it took plant life to move from the oceans,
etc.  It's a long, long story.

Also as an aside, I think it's pretty silly that a God would have ever had to
'intervene'.  Certainly, we can see no evidence for any divine intervention in
the universe anywhere, and everything seems to follow along predefined laws. 
Did God write the laws?  I dunno, but if he's all knowing, I'm sure he would
have had little more to do that to set the initial condition, and already know
how it would turn out.  But if he does exist, and he gave us all rational and
inquisitive minds, should we just ignore what they tell us?  I don't really care
if there is a God, I just want the science of evolution to be better understood,
because this really IS how complex life arrived on this planet, and damnit it's
interesting!  It's even more miraculous, to me, than the notion of a diety going
'POOF' and making everything with magic.

"
I see the position (chance fusings of molecular debris that initiate
life) as every bit an act of belief as would make any religionist
proud, being totally absent sound scientific proof, and not being
repeatable in a lab."

I'm sorry but this is just ignorant, there is sound scientific proof, and these
things have, in fact, been done in a lab.



_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
ruylopez
2007-08-07 02:42:37 UTC
Permalink
{{some garbled mess}}
ack.. that's darn near unreadable.. sorry about quoting poorly.. long time no
RGP for me.


_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-07 12:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
{{some garbled mess}}
ack.. that's darn near unreadable.. sorry about quoting poorly.. long time no
RGP for me.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 -http://www.recpoker.com
JEH...What I take from your post is, you know a lot about evolution,
do not care whether God exists or not, do not know how life got it's
start but find the initiation of life to be miraculous, in any event,
and you believe we will someday learn how life got it's start.

What remark confused me is where you claim life has already been
created in a lab experiment, somewhere.

I must have missed that news, perhaps you can direct me to the
information.. I would think that would get a headline like , "life
form, created in a lab by old so and so".
ruylopez
2007-08-07 23:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
What remark confused me is where you claim life has already been
created in a lab experiment, somewhere.
I must have missed that news, perhaps you can direct me to the
information.. I would think that would get a headline like , "life
form, created in a lab by old so and so".
Well, okay, they haven't created actual life in a tube.  That takes loads of
time.  What they have done, is shown how it's possible for organic molecules to
form from simpler molecules in conditions which may have been similar to the
Earth's early atmosphere.  Namely, a reducing environment, which means electrons
are being added.  Even if they entire atmosphere wasn't like this on early
Earth, it's likely it was in some spots.

In 1953 there was an experiemtn done by Miller and Urey at University of Chicago
where they were able to get simple amino acids and oily hydrocarbons to form
using sparks in a tube.  This is the kind of evidence I'm discussing.  They have
shown how it was possible for simple organic molecules to form spontaneously,
and from there, chemistry and evolution take over.

Of course it's all theoretical, but there are supporting experiments.


_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-08 01:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
What remark confused me is where you claim life has already been
created in a lab experiment, somewhere.
I must have missed that news, perhaps you can direct me to the
information.. I would think that would get a headline like , "life
form, created in a lab by old so and so".
Well, okay, they haven't created actual life in a tube. That takes loads of
time. What they have done, is shown how it's possible for organic molecules to
form from simpler molecules in conditions which may have been similar to the
Earth's early atmosphere. Namely, a reducing environment, which means electrons
are being added. Even if they entire atmosphere wasn't like this on early
Earth, it's likely it was in some spots.
In 1953 there was an experiemtn done by Miller and Urey at University of Chicago
where they were able to get simple amino acids and oily hydrocarbons to form
using sparks in a tube. This is the kind of evidence I'm discussing. They have
shown how it was possible for simple organic molecules to form spontaneously,
and from there, chemistry and evolution take over.
Of course it's all theoretical, but there are supporting experiments.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
JEH...I apologise for my clumsy attempts to suggest that no one of us
knows how life was initiated, because, in my opinion, if we really
knew how it happened, we could reproduce it, which we can not.

I meant to observe the infrequency the initiation of life anywhere in
the universe except earth, to our knowledge (as you suggested, only
planets that match the earth's elements of water and oxygen can
produce life)

I would think that you as well would find it hard to understand that
over the spectrum of cosmic material and over the enormous amount of
time that has passed since the Big Bang, we have not discovered a
planet older than ours, that has enjoyed the birth of life..I believe
this to be true since we earthlings are already entering the Cosmos in
baby steps, and I would think, if an older planet, among the billions
of planet existing, had experienced the birth of life earlier than we
did, evolution should have brought that planet's life forms forward,
in a similar manner as happened in our world. There is no evidence of
such an older planet.

If you are good with this thought, that Earth is probably the sole
recipient planet of the gift of life, I take it another step and ask,
"why do you think that is the case?"

Why are there no other evidence of life in the Cosmos?
ruylopez
2007-08-08 01:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...I apologise for my clumsy attempts to suggest that no one of us
knows how life was initiated, because, in my opinion, if we really
knew how it happened, we could reproduce it, which we can not.
I meant to observe the infrequency the initiation of life anywhere in
the universe except earth, to our knowledge (as you suggested, only
planets that match the earth's elements of water and oxygen can
produce life)
I would think that you as well would find it hard to understand that
over the spectrum of cosmic material and over the enormous amount of
time that has passed since the Big Bang, we have not discovered a
planet older than ours, that has enjoyed the birth of life..I believe
this to be true since we earthlings are already entering the Cosmos in
baby steps, and I would think, if an older planet, among the billions
of planet existing, had experienced the birth of life earlier than we
did, evolution should have brought that planet's life forms forward,
in a similar manner as happened in our world. There is no evidence of
such an older planet.
If you are good with this thought, that Earth is probably the sole
recipient planet of the gift of life, I take it another step and ask,
"why do you think that is the case?"
Why are there no other evidence of life in the Cosmos?
Well, I think this is primarily because such data is really hard to come by. 
It's only been in the last ten to fifteen years or so that we've even been able
to resolve planets of other stars with more and more powerful telescopes. 
Still, the ones we have found are limited to those orbiting nearby stars.  We
can't see what's going on in the majority of the galaxy, the objects are just
too far away and the planets themselves are too small.  And that says nothing
about the countless number of other galaxies floating around in the universe. 

Not only are you dealing with time issues, as the light from these distant
galaxies would take perhaps billions of light years to reach us, but we just
don't have the instruments to see that far or with the detail necessary to work
out if there are planets there, or beyond that if they are capable of supporting
life.

This certainly doesn't mean it has never happened anywhere else.  Further there
could be completely different styles of life on other planets that we've never
even thought of.  It's just that finding such data is extremely difficult when
you are trying to see it across insanely large distances.



_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-08 13:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...I apologise for my clumsy attempts to suggest that no one of us
knows how life was initiated, because, in my opinion, if we really
knew how it happened, we could reproduce it, which we can not.
I meant to observe the infrequency the initiation of life anywhere in
the universe except earth, to our knowledge (as you suggested, only
planets that match the earth's elements of water and oxygen can
produce life)
I would think that you as well would find it hard to understand that
over the spectrum of cosmic material and over the enormous amount of
time that has passed since the Big Bang, we have not discovered a
planet older than ours, that has enjoyed the birth of life..I believe
this to be true since we earthlings are already entering the Cosmos in
baby steps, and I would think, if an older planet, among the billions
of planet existing, had experienced the birth of life earlier than we
did, evolution should have brought that planet's life forms forward,
in a similar manner as happened in our world. There is no evidence of
such an older planet.
If you are good with this thought, that Earth is probably the sole
recipient planet of the gift of life, I take it another step and ask,
"why do you think that is the case?"
Why are there no other evidence of life in the Cosmos?
Well, I think this is primarily because such data is really hard to come by.
It's only been in the last ten to fifteen years or so that we've even been able
to resolve planets of other stars with more and more powerful telescopes.
Still, the ones we have found are limited to those orbiting nearby stars. We
can't see what's going on in the majority of the galaxy, the objects are just
too far away and the planets themselves are too small. And that says nothing
about the countless number of other galaxies floating around in the universe.
Not only are you dealing with time issues, as the light from these distant
galaxies would take perhaps billions of light years to reach us, but we just
don't have the instruments to see that far or with the detail necessary to work
out if there are planets there, or beyond that if they are capable of supporting
life.
This certainly doesn't mean it has never happened anywhere else. Further there
could be completely different styles of life on other planets that we've never
even thought of. It's just that finding such data is extremely difficult when
you are trying to see it across insanely large distances.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
JEH...But that is exactly the point...With all of the planet
possibilities over the enormous life of the cosmos, and with our
obscure planet in a only few hundred years having life so advanced
that we are actually capable of searching the cosmos (remember, we
did not have electric lights two hundred years ago), it is not
believable that another planets life forms would fail to have advanced
enough to make their prescense known.

It is more likely we are alone...
Bob T.
2007-08-08 13:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by ruylopez
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...I apologise for my clumsy attempts to suggest that no one of us
knows how life was initiated, because, in my opinion, if we really
knew how it happened, we could reproduce it, which we can not.
I meant to observe the infrequency the initiation of life anywhere in
the universe except earth, to our knowledge (as you suggested, only
planets that match the earth's elements of water and oxygen can
produce life)
I would think that you as well would find it hard to understand that
over the spectrum of cosmic material and over the enormous amount of
time that has passed since the Big Bang, we have not discovered a
planet older than ours, that has enjoyed the birth of life..I believe
this to be true since we earthlings are already entering the Cosmos in
baby steps, and I would think, if an older planet, among the billions
of planet existing, had experienced the birth of life earlier than we
did, evolution should have brought that planet's life forms forward,
in a similar manner as happened in our world. There is no evidence of
such an older planet.
If you are good with this thought, that Earth is probably the sole
recipient planet of the gift of life, I take it another step and ask,
"why do you think that is the case?"
Why are there no other evidence of life in the Cosmos?
Well, I think this is primarily because such data is really hard to come by.
It's only been in the last ten to fifteen years or so that we've even been able
to resolve planets of other stars with more and more powerful telescopes.
Still, the ones we have found are limited to those orbiting nearby stars. We
can't see what's going on in the majority of the galaxy, the objects are just
too far away and the planets themselves are too small. And that says nothing
about the countless number of other galaxies floating around in the universe.
Not only are you dealing with time issues, as the light from these distant
galaxies would take perhaps billions of light years to reach us, but we just
don't have the instruments to see that far or with the detail necessary to work
out if there are planets there, or beyond that if they are capable of supporting
life.
This certainly doesn't mean it has never happened anywhere else. Further there
could be completely different styles of life on other planets that we've never
even thought of. It's just that finding such data is extremely difficult when
you are trying to see it across insanely large distances.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
JEH...But that is exactly the point...With all of the planet
possibilities over the enormous life of the cosmos, and with our
obscure planet in a only few hundred years having life so advanced
that we are actually capable of searching the cosmos (remember, we
did not have electric lights two hundred years ago), it is not
believable that another planets life forms would fail to have advanced
enough to make their prescense known.
Of course it's believable. You don't seem to understand the vast
distances involved. How would we know if there was a planet full of
life and intelligent beings that was a million light years away? How
would they know about us?
Post by j***@earthlink.net
It is more likely we are alone...
We have no way to tell whether we are alone or not.

- Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
- Show quoted text -
KilgoreTrout
2007-08-08 15:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by ruylopez
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...I apologise for my clumsy attempts to suggest that no one of us
knows how life was initiated, because, in my opinion, if we really
knew how it happened, we could reproduce it, which we can not.
I meant to observe the infrequency the initiation of life anywhere in
the universe except earth, to our knowledge (as you suggested, only
planets that match the earth's elements of water and oxygen can
produce life)
I would think that you as well would find it hard to understand that
over the spectrum of cosmic material and over the enormous amount of
time that has passed since the Big Bang, we have not discovered a
planet older than ours, that has enjoyed the birth of life..I believe
this to be true since we earthlings are already entering the Cosmos in
baby steps, and I would think, if an older planet, among the billions
of planet existing, had experienced the birth of life earlier than we
did, evolution should have brought that planet's life forms forward,
in a similar manner as happened in our world. There is no evidence of
such an older planet.
If you are good with this thought, that Earth is probably the sole
recipient planet of the gift of life, I take it another step and ask,
"why do you think that is the case?"
Why are there no other evidence of life in the Cosmos?
Well, I think this is primarily because such data is really hard to come by.
It's only been in the last ten to fifteen years or so that we've even been able
to resolve planets of other stars with more and more powerful telescopes.
Still, the ones we have found are limited to those orbiting nearby stars. We
can't see what's going on in the majority of the galaxy, the objects are just
too far away and the planets themselves are too small. And that says nothing
about the countless number of other galaxies floating around in the universe.
Not only are you dealing with time issues, as the light from these distant
galaxies would take perhaps billions of light years to reach us, but we just
don't have the instruments to see that far or with the detail necessary to work
out if there are planets there, or beyond that if they are capable of supporting
life.
This certainly doesn't mean it has never happened anywhere else.
Further there
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by ruylopez
could be completely different styles of life on other planets that we've never
even thought of. It's just that finding such data is extremely difficult when
you are trying to see it across insanely large distances.
- Show quoted text -
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...But that is exactly the point...With all of the planet
possibilities over the enormous life of the cosmos, and with our
obscure planet in a only few hundred years having life so advanced
that we are actually capable of searching the cosmos (remember, we
did not have electric lights two hundred years ago), it is not
believable that another planets life forms would fail to have advanced
enough to make their prescense known.
Of course it's believable. You don't seem to understand the vast
distances involved. How would we know if there was a planet full of
life and intelligent beings that was a million light years away? How
would they know about us?
Post by j***@earthlink.net
It is more likely we are alone...
We have no way to tell whether we are alone or not.
- Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
- Show quoted text -
We also shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking, cuz of this one isolated
instance (Earth), that intelligence is such a powerful evolutionary
advantage that it would automatically be selected for on all these other,
theoretical life-bearing planets.

It could easily turn out that life comes about quite frequently, but very
rarely evolves a superintelligent species like Man. I use the term
superintelligent as a relative comparison to other species.

In which case, JAH's entire "well, we'd know if life was out there!"
argument is meaningless.

Cheers.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

-------- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Bob T.
2007-08-08 16:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
We also shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking, cuz of this one isolated
instance (Earth), that intelligence is such a powerful evolutionary
advantage that it would automatically be selected for on all these other,
theoretical life-bearing planets.
Indeed. It should also be noted that visitors to our planet would not
have found intelligence until quite recently, and would have only
found civilization very very recently. The Earth has had living
things for most of it's 4.5 billion year history, but humans didn't
become intelligent until about a million years ago, and didn't start
building civilizations until a few scant thousand years ago.
Post by KilgoreTrout
It could easily turn out that life comes about quite frequently, but very
rarely evolves a superintelligent species like Man. I use the term
superintelligent as a relative comparison to other species.
A darker thought is that intelligence is self-correcting - most or all
intelligent species might end up destroying themselves before they
learn enough wisdom to avoid it.

- Bob T.
Post by KilgoreTrout
In which case, JAH's entire "well, we'd know if life was out there!"
argument is meaningless.
Cheers.
Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-09 00:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob T.
Post by KilgoreTrout
We also shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking, cuz of this one isolated
instance (Earth), that intelligence is such a powerful evolutionary
advantage that it would automatically be selected for on all these other,
theoretical life-bearing planets.
Indeed. It should also be noted that visitors to our planet would not
have found intelligence until quite recently, and would have only
found civilization very very recently. The Earth has had living
things for most of it's 4.5 billion year history, but humans didn't
become intelligent until about a million years ago, and didn't start
building civilizations until a few scant thousand years ago.
Post by KilgoreTrout
It could easily turn out that life comes about quite frequently, but very
rarely evolves a superintelligent species like Man. I use the term
superintelligent as a relative comparison to other species.
A darker thought is that intelligence is self-correcting - most or all
intelligent species might end up destroying themselves before they
learn enough wisdom to avoid it.
- Bob T.
Post by KilgoreTrout
In which case, JAH's entire "well, we'd know if life was out there!"
argument is meaningless.
Cheers.
Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
JEH...On one hand, we casually state the efficiency of evolution, how
matter of fact the process is, put a little of this, a little of that
in a bowl, add a dash of oxygen, some electrical sparks and there you
have it, life...

Smugly certain, aren't we?...

Except science can not create life...


Oh, don't worry, they say, we will...

It just takes a lot of time...But we are super smart and eventually we
will do it...


But time of course, tells a different story..

Time says the intelligent life on earth only recently became skilled
enough to enter the cosmos, in fact, Earthlings cosmological advances
are only decades old, by earth's clock. And yet they have managed to
advance into the cosmos.

It would therefore seem likely, to me, that any other intelligent
life, on any other older planet than ours, would have the luxury of
time to advance their intelligence, and using just the rate we have
advanced as a model, would almost certainly be as advanced as we are,
if they as well developed in the last two hundred years. If their
development started four hundred years ago, of course, we would expect
them to much further advanced than we are, and so on, playing out
earth's clock.

Of course, we can not know how advanced any other planet's intelligent
life, because we have not made contact with any as yet, a point made
by ruylopez...

But you have to admit, there are enormous numbers of planets that
qualify for life forms, as well as an enormous amount of time for
their development to match or exceed ours..

And yet, none of our space-launched explorers have generated any
contacts to date..

Will there be contact in the future? I tend to doubt it..

IMHO, I think we are alone....

But don't get nervous, it's just a guess...
Bob T.
2007-08-09 14:31:23 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 8, 5:51 pm, ***@earthlink.net wrote:
<snip>
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...On one hand, we casually state the efficiency of evolution, how
matter of fact the process is, put a little of this, a little of that
in a bowl, add a dash of oxygen, some electrical sparks and there you
have it, life...
Smugly certain, aren't we?...
Yep - just as smugly certain as we are that the sun will rise in the
East tomorrow, and that gravity will continue to make things fall
down, not up. There is no scientific doubt about the Theory of
Evolution - the people who don't believe in Evolution are motivated by
religion, not by science.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Except science can not create life...
Nor can science create a planet, and yet we understand what makes them
orbit around stars.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Oh, don't worry, they say, we will...
It just takes a lot of time...But we are super smart and eventually we
will do it...
But time of course, tells a different story..
Time says the intelligent life on earth only recently became skilled
enough to enter the cosmos, in fact, Earthlings cosmological advances
are only decades old, by earth's clock. And yet they have managed to
advance into the cosmos.
It would therefore seem likely, to me, that any other intelligent
life, on any other older planet than ours, would have the luxury of
time to advance their intelligence, and using just the rate we have
advanced as a model, would almost certainly be as advanced as we are,
if they as well developed in the last two hundred years. If their
development started four hundred years ago, of course, we would expect
them to much further advanced than we are, and so on, playing out
earth's clock.
Of course, we can not know how advanced any other planet's intelligent
life, because we have not made contact with any as yet, a point made
by ruylopez...
But you have to admit, there are enormous numbers of planets that
qualify for life forms, as well as an enormous amount of time for
their development to match or exceed ours..
And yet, none of our space-launched explorers have generated any
contacts to date..
Will there be contact in the future? I tend to doubt it..
IMHO, I think we are alone....
But don't get nervous, it's just a guess...
Worse than a "guess" - you really don't understand the subject at all,
so your opinion is no more valuable than flipping a coin. "Heads
there is other intelligent life in the universe, tails there is not."

- Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
- Show quoted text -
KilgoreTrout
2007-08-09 14:54:18 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 8 2007 8:51 PM, jeh33844 wrote:

Each of the points you make in this post has been asked and answered in
direct replies to you at other points in this thread. Yet, you ignore
those replies, and find a new place to insert the same questions.

This is an extremely dishonest method of discussion. You should either
attempt to respond to the counters, or stop asking the same, tired
questions.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by Bob T.
Post by KilgoreTrout
We also shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking, cuz of this one isolated
instance (Earth), that intelligence is such a powerful evolutionary
advantage that it would automatically be selected for on all these other,
theoretical life-bearing planets.
Indeed. It should also be noted that visitors to our planet would not
have found intelligence until quite recently, and would have only
found civilization very very recently. The Earth has had living
things for most of it's 4.5 billion year history, but humans didn't
become intelligent until about a million years ago, and didn't start
building civilizations until a few scant thousand years ago.
Post by KilgoreTrout
It could easily turn out that life comes about quite frequently, but very
rarely evolves a superintelligent species like Man. I use the term
superintelligent as a relative comparison to other species.
A darker thought is that intelligence is self-correcting - most or all
intelligent species might end up destroying themselves before they
learn enough wisdom to avoid it.
- Bob T.
Post by KilgoreTrout
In which case, JAH's entire "well, we'd know if life was out there!"
argument is meaningless.
Cheers.
Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Post by Bob T.
- Show quoted text -
JEH...On one hand, we casually state the efficiency of evolution, how
matter of fact the process is, put a little of this, a little of that
in a bowl, add a dash of oxygen, some electrical sparks and there you
have it, life...
First of all, evolution has nothing to do with the origin(s) of life.
Stop confusing the issue. Secondly, you've made this argument several
times, that if we know how a process works, we should be able to reproduce
it.

I offered the counterexample: we have a good idea how a star becomes a
black hole. We cannot reproduce this process.

Defend or concede yer point.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Smugly certain, aren't we?...
Except science can not create life...
See above.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Oh, don't worry, they say, we will...
Who says that?
Post by j***@earthlink.net
It just takes a lot of time...But we are super smart and eventually we
will do it...
But time of course, tells a different story..
Time says the intelligent life on earth only recently became skilled
enough to enter the cosmos, in fact, Earthlings cosmological advances
are only decades old, by earth's clock. And yet they have managed to
advance into the cosmos.
It would therefore seem likely, to me, that any other intelligent
life, on any other older planet than ours, would have the luxury of
time to advance their intelligence, and using just the rate we have
advanced as a model, would almost certainly be as advanced as we are,
if they as well developed in the last two hundred years.
The very first hand of poker I play, I get AA. Now, I expect that getting
AA is very common.

This is erroneous thinking. You cannot generalize from a single instance
(intelligent life on Earth) to a universal statement (intelligent life
should be abundent in the universe, should be as/more advanced than us,
and should be detectable by us).

Defend yer point, or concede.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
If their
development started four hundred years ago, of course, we would expect
them to much further advanced than we are, and so on, playing out
earth's clock.
Of course, we can not know how advanced any other planet's intelligent
life, because we have not made contact with any as yet, a point made
by ruylopez...
But you have to admit, there are enormous numbers of planets that
qualify for life forms, as well as an enormous amount of time for
their development to match or exceed ours..
And yet, none of our space-launched explorers have generated any
contacts to date..
Will there be contact in the future? I tend to doubt it..
IMHO, I think we are alone....
But don't get nervous, it's just a guess...
Well, you save yerself a bit, here. It is, indeed, "just a guess". Cuz,
like, dewd... there's nothing even remotely resembling critical thinking,
or sound argumentation, in yer reply.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, JEH (although yer JEH preface to each
reply drives me batty!), but I'm wondering why you keep making the same
points in this thread, without replying to the counterarguments made
against those points.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
KilgoreTrout
2007-08-09 15:00:16 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 8 2007 8:51 PM, jeh33844 wrote:

Each of the points you make in this post has been asked and answered in
direct replies to you at other points in this thread. Yet, you ignore
those replies, and find a new place to insert the same questions.

This is an extremely dishonest method of discussion. You should either
attempt to respond to the counters, or stop asking the same, tired
questions.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by Bob T.
Post by KilgoreTrout
We also shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking, cuz of this one isolated
instance (Earth), that intelligence is such a powerful evolutionary
advantage that it would automatically be selected for on all these other,
theoretical life-bearing planets.
Indeed. It should also be noted that visitors to our planet would not
have found intelligence until quite recently, and would have only
found civilization very very recently. The Earth has had living
things for most of it's 4.5 billion year history, but humans didn't
become intelligent until about a million years ago, and didn't start
building civilizations until a few scant thousand years ago.
Post by KilgoreTrout
It could easily turn out that life comes about quite frequently, but very
rarely evolves a superintelligent species like Man. I use the term
superintelligent as a relative comparison to other species.
A darker thought is that intelligence is self-correcting - most or all
intelligent species might end up destroying themselves before they
learn enough wisdom to avoid it.
- Bob T.
Post by KilgoreTrout
In which case, JAH's entire "well, we'd know if life was out there!"
argument is meaningless.
Cheers.
Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Post by Bob T.
- Show quoted text -
JEH...On one hand, we casually state the efficiency of evolution, how
matter of fact the process is, put a little of this, a little of that
in a bowl, add a dash of oxygen, some electrical sparks and there you
have it, life...
First of all, evolution has nothing to do with the origin(s) of life.
Stop confusing the issue. Secondly, you've made this argument several
times, that if we know how a process works, we should be able to reproduce
it.

I offered the counterexample: we have a good idea how a star becomes a
black hole. We cannot reproduce this process.

Defend or concede yer point.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Smugly certain, aren't we?...
Except science can not create life...
See above.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Oh, don't worry, they say, we will...
Who says that?
Post by j***@earthlink.net
It just takes a lot of time...But we are super smart and eventually we
will do it...
But time of course, tells a different story..
Time says the intelligent life on earth only recently became skilled
enough to enter the cosmos, in fact, Earthlings cosmological advances
are only decades old, by earth's clock. And yet they have managed to
advance into the cosmos.
It would therefore seem likely, to me, that any other intelligent
life, on any other older planet than ours, would have the luxury of
time to advance their intelligence, and using just the rate we have
advanced as a model, would almost certainly be as advanced as we are,
if they as well developed in the last two hundred years.
The very first hand of poker I play, I get AA. Now, I expect that getting
AA is very common.

This is erroneous thinking. You cannot generalize from a single instance
(intelligent life on Earth) to a universal statement (intelligent life
should be abundent in the universe, should be as/more advanced than us,
and should be detectable by us).

Defend yer point, or concede.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
If their
development started four hundred years ago, of course, we would expect
them to much further advanced than we are, and so on, playing out
earth's clock.
Of course, we can not know how advanced any other planet's intelligent
life, because we have not made contact with any as yet, a point made
by ruylopez...
But you have to admit, there are enormous numbers of planets that
qualify for life forms, as well as an enormous amount of time for
their development to match or exceed ours..
And yet, none of our space-launched explorers have generated any
contacts to date..
Will there be contact in the future? I tend to doubt it..
IMHO, I think we are alone....
But don't get nervous, it's just a guess...
Well, you save yerself a bit, here. It is, indeed, "just a guess". Cuz,
like, dewd... there's nothing even remotely resembling critical thinking,
or sound argumentation, in yer reply.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, JEH (although yer JEH preface to each
reply drives me batty!), but I'm wondering why you keep making the same
points in this thread, without replying to the counterarguments made
against those points.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

--- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
ruylopez
2007-08-09 00:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
We also shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking, cuz of this one isolated
instance (Earth), that intelligence is such a powerful evolutionary
advantage that it would automatically be selected for on all these other,
theoretical life-bearing planets.
It could easily turn out that life comes about quite frequently, but very
rarely evolves a superintelligent species like Man. I use the term
superintelligent as a relative comparison to other species.
In which case, JAH's entire "well, we'd know if life was out there!"
argument is meaningless.
Cheers.
Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991
Not only that, but really we don't even know if this kind of intelligence can
survive.  That is, are there othere 'civilizations' in the universe?  Since
that's really what you're talking about when you think of intelligent life
elsewhere in the universe that we could communicate with.  Well, thing is, we've
only been running a civilization on this planet for about 6 thousand years,
which is less than a blink of an eye for the universe.  And, some would argue,
we're on the verge of annihilating ourselves, and clearly, this civilization
won't sustain itself as it is for another 6000 years.

So if this is as long as civilation can last, and for all we know, it might be,
then the odds of another one being out there in the universe, at this particular
moment, take a big nose dive.


_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Tom White
2007-08-09 11:38:18 UTC
Permalink
ruylopez <***@recpoker.com> wrote:
+ Not only that, but really we don't even know if this kind of intelligence can
+ survive. That is, are there othere 'civilizations' in the universe? Since
+ that's really what you're talking about when you think of intelligent life
+ elsewhere in the universe that we could communicate with. Well, thing is, we've
+ only been running a civilization on this planet for about 6 thousand years,
+ which is less than a blink of an eye for the universe. And, some would argue,
+ we're on the verge of annihilating ourselves, and clearly, this civilization
+ won't sustain itself as it is for another 6000 years.
+
+ So if this is as long as civilation can last, and for all we know, it might be,
+ then the odds of another one being out there in the universe, at this particular
+ moment, take a big nose dive.

Are you saying that, given enough time, an alien civilization might
develop self-destructive mutants similar to our Democrats?
KilgoreTrout
2007-08-08 15:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by j***@earthlink.net
What remark confused me is where you claim life has already been
created in a lab experiment, somewhere.
I must have missed that news, perhaps you can direct me to the
information.. I would think that would get a headline like , "life
form, created in a lab by old so and so".
Well, okay, they haven't created actual life in a tube. That takes loads of
time. What they have done, is shown how it's possible for organic molecules to
form from simpler molecules in conditions which may have been similar to the
Earth's early atmosphere. Namely, a reducing environment, which means electrons
are being added. Even if they entire atmosphere wasn't like this on early
Earth, it's likely it was in some spots.
In 1953 there was an experiemtn done by Miller and Urey at University of Chicago
where they were able to get simple amino acids and oily hydrocarbons to form
using sparks in a tube. This is the kind of evidence I'm discussing.
They have
Post by j***@earthlink.net
shown how it was possible for simple organic molecules to form spontaneously,
and from there, chemistry and evolution take over.
Of course it's all theoretical, but there are supporting experiments.
JEH...I apologise for my clumsy attempts to suggest that no one of us
knows how life was initiated, because, in my opinion, if we really
knew how it happened, we could reproduce it, which we can not.
We have a pretty good idea how black holes are formed. Why don't you go
reproduce *that*?
Post by j***@earthlink.net
I meant to observe the infrequency the initiation of life anywhere in
the universe except earth, to our knowledge (as you suggested, only
planets that match the earth's elements of water and oxygen can
produce life)
There could be life on the majority of the Earth-similar planets out
there, and we wouldn't know one way or the other right now. So, this is a
non-point.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
I would think that you as well would find it hard to understand that
over the spectrum of cosmic material and over the enormous amount of
time that has passed since the Big Bang, we have not discovered a
planet older than ours, that has enjoyed the birth of life..I believe
this to be true since we earthlings are already entering the Cosmos in
baby steps, and I would think, if an older planet, among the billions
of planet existing, had experienced the birth of life earlier than we
did, evolution should have brought that planet's life forms forward,
in a similar manner as happened in our world. There is no evidence of
such an older planet.
WTH are you talking about?

What proof do we have one way or the other? Have we examined a
significant sample of Earth-similar planets outside our solar system? Of
course not.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
If you are good with this thought, that Earth is probably the sole
recipient planet of the gift of life, I take it another step and ask,
"why do you think that is the case?"
Who would be good with that thought? Only the clueless amongst us?
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Why are there no other evidence of life in the Cosmos?
Look, dewd, we have been able to examine two Earth-similar planets, thus
far. Mars, and, well, Earth. Earth is a definite, Mars is a maybe.

Cheers.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

------ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
2007-08-07 03:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
You speak of the scientists' demand for demonstrable proof of any
assertion...
Not only did he never speak of that, anyone who does speak of it has no
understanding of what science is all about.


Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-07 13:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
Post by j***@earthlink.net
You speak of the scientists' demand for demonstrable proof of any
assertion...
Not only did he never speak of that, anyone who does speak of it has no
understanding of what science is all about.
Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more -http://www.recpoker.com
JEH...Ruylopez has said he is an atheist..He also said he does not
know how lthe initial life formed.

What I am attempting to point out is that, whether you are an atheist
who believes there is no God involved in life's creations or you are
an agnostic or you believe there is God's hand in life's complex
systems, each of these polar opposites are expressing an act of faith.

For one thing, though, Ruylopez and I agree the creation of life is
indeed miraculous.
Bob T.
2007-08-07 13:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by Gary Carson
Post by j***@earthlink.net
You speak of the scientists' demand for demonstrable proof of any
assertion...
Not only did he never speak of that, anyone who does speak of it has no
understanding of what science is all about.
Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more -http://www.recpoker.com
JEH...Ruylopez has said he is an atheist..He also said he does not
know how lthe initial life formed.
Did he? I missed it. It would be easier to follow your reasoning if
you actually quoted the people you were talking about.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
What I am attempting to point out is that, whether you are an atheist
who believes there is no God involved in life's creations or you are
an agnostic or you believe there is God's hand in life's complex
systems, each of these polar opposites are expressing an act of faith.
Well, you're just plain wrong, unless you redefine the word "faith" so
broadly that it includes having "faith" that the sun will rise
tomorrow morning. Science is science, and religion is religion.
Science is based on facts and logic, religion is based on faith. The
two are really not very similar ways of understanding the world at
all.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
For one thing, though, Ruylopez and I agree the creation of life is indeed miraculous.
Do you? Please quote the post where Ruylopez said anything like
that. It's easy to make shit up and attribute it to people, but it's
no way to debate.

- Bob T.
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-07 18:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by Gary Carson
Post by j***@earthlink.net
You speak of the scientists' demand for demonstrable proof of any
assertion...
Not only did he never speak of that, anyone who does speak of it has no
understanding of what science is all about.
Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more -http://www.recpoker.com
JEH...Ruylopez has said he is an atheist..He also said he does not
know how lthe initial life formed.
Did he? I missed it. It would be easier to follow your reasoning if
you actually quoted the people you were talking about.
JEH...quoting ruylopez:

The Cambrian Explosion refers
to the massive radiation of animals and increase in diversity of life
on Earth
which began about 500-600 million years ago. The reasons for this are
no fully
understood, there are several hypotheses, (snip)...
Post by Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
What I am attempting to point out is that, whether you are an atheist
who believes there is no God involved in life's creations or you are
an agnostic or you believe there is God's hand in life's complex
systems, each of these polar opposites are expressing an act of faith.
For one thing, though, Ruylopez and I agree the creation of life is indeed miraculous.
Do you? Please quote the post where Ruylopez said anything like
that. It's easy to make shit up and attribute it to people, but it's
no way to debate.
JEH...quoting Ruylopez' post:

..."But if he does exist, and he gave us all rational and
inquisitive minds, should we just ignore what they tell us? I don't
really care
if there is a God, I just want the science of evolution to be better
understood,
because this really IS...

... how complex life arrived on this planet, and

...damnit it's interesting! It's even more miraculous, to me, ...

than the notion of a diety going 'POOF' and making everything with
magic." (snip)...


...filling the ocean with oxygen to the point of saturation and
then it spilled out into the atmosphere. This allowed for respiration
and a
whole new slew of life forms.

..However, this is not a rush of 'initial life forms' early in Earth's
history.
Life on earth goes back something like 4 billion years...I dunno wtf
he's
talking about, there also was a major radiation of mammals about 65
million
years ago following the demise of the dinosaurs. This is a case of
mammals
filling all the niches that reptiles were no longer there to fill.
(snip)

For what JEH says is apparently the 'central question' of this
thread:
"
how did the initial cooperating cells of
any or all of the life systems on our planet, manage to initiate life
by accident or happenstance, and having done so only during a narrow
period of our earth's existence and nowhere on any other planet in
the"
sky?


ruylopez...It's kind of hard to explain to you how life might have
arisen spontaneously
on Earth without getting very technical. (snip). But
it's not happenstance, or chance, or luck, or anything like that.
(snip)


JEH...But that's the question, "how did life arise simultaneously,
(from nothing)?


Also as an aside, I think it's pretty silly that a God would have ever
had to
'intervene'. Certainly, we can see no evidence for any divine
intervention in
the universe anywhere, and everything seems to follow along predefined
laws. Did God write the laws? I dunno, but if he's all knowing, I'm
sure he would
have had little more to do that to set the initial condition, and
already know
how it would turn out. But if he does exist, and he gave us all
rational and
inquisitive minds, should we just ignore what they tell us? I don't
really care
if there is a God, I just want the science of evolution to be better
understood,
because this really IS how complex life arrived on this planet, and
damnit it's
interesting! It's even more miraculous, to me, than the notion of a
diety going
'POOF' and making everything with magic. (snip)...

I see the position (chance fusings of molecular debris that initiate
life) as every bit an act of belief as would make any religionist
proud, being totally absent sound scientific proof, and not being
repeatable in a lab."


I'm sorry but this is just ignorant, there is sound scientific proof,
and these
things have, in fact, been done in a lab.


JEH...I don't think so...If your are ignorant as to the origin of
life, by definition, you are ignorant..
ruylopez
2007-08-07 23:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Well, yeah, I do think the whole thing is kind of miraculous, but I don't mean
to imply that it could only have been created by God.  It's just freaking
amazing to me the complexity of modern life, just look at the human brain for
example, how incredibly amazingly complicated .. far, far more powerful than any
computer we have ever created.  The way these things can arise by totally
natural physical properties of the universe astounds me.  I don't think saying
it's 'miraculous' is any big stretch.

Don't think I ever said I was an atheist before though, at least not in this
thread!  I suppose I would have said it at points in the past, but not so much
now.  I'm certainly not subscribed to any known, organized religion, but I'm not
going to rule out the possibility of a Creator, hell, I don't know..


_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-08 01:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Well, yeah, I do think the whole thing is kind of miraculous, but I don't mean
to imply that it could only have been created by God. It's just freaking
amazing to me the complexity of modern life, just look at the human brain for
example, how incredibly amazingly complicated .. far, far more powerful than any
computer we have ever created. The way these things can arise by totally
natural physical properties of the universe astounds me. I don't think saying
it's 'miraculous' is any big stretch.
Don't think I ever said I was an atheist before though, at least not in this
thread! I suppose I would have said it at points in the past, but not so much
now. I'm certainly not subscribed to any known, organized religion, but I'm not
going to rule out the possibility of a Creator, hell, I don't know..
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
JEH...Nor do I...
bo dark
2007-08-09 06:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Well, yeah, I do think the whole thing is kind of miraculous, but I don't mean
to imply that it could only have been created by God. It's just freaking
amazing to me the complexity of modern life, just look at the human brain for
example, how incredibly amazingly complicated .. far, far more powerful than any
computer we have ever created. The way these things can arise by totally
natural physical properties of the universe astounds me. I don't think saying
it's 'miraculous' is any big stretch.
Don't think I ever said I was an atheist before though, at least not in this
thread! I suppose I would have said it at points in the past, but not so much
now. I'm certainly not subscribed to any known, organized religion, but I'm not
going to rule out the possibility of a Creator, hell, I don't know..
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/


found this interesting.



-The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the
youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured
died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It
enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the
same time.


maybe things haven't changed to much?
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-09 13:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by bo dark
Post by ruylopez
Well, yeah, I do think the whole thing is kind of miraculous, but I don't mean
to imply that it could only have been created by God. It's just freaking
amazing to me the complexity of modern life, just look at the human brain for
example, how incredibly amazingly complicated .. far, far more powerful than any
computer we have ever created. The way these things can arise by totally
natural physical properties of the universe astounds me. I don't think saying
it's 'miraculous' is any big stretch.
Don't think I ever said I was an atheist before though, at least not in this
thread! I suppose I would have said it at points in the past, but not so much
now. I'm certainly not subscribed to any known, organized religion, but I'm not
going to rule out the possibility of a Creator, hell, I don't know..
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/
found this interesting.
-The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the
youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured
died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It
enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the
same time.
maybe things haven't changed to much?
JEH..Your point? God? No god?
Bob T.
2007-08-09 14:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by bo dark
Post by ruylopez
Well, yeah, I do think the whole thing is kind of miraculous, but I don't mean
to imply that it could only have been created by God. It's just freaking
amazing to me the complexity of modern life, just look at the human brain for
example, how incredibly amazingly complicated .. far, far more powerful than any
computer we have ever created. The way these things can arise by totally
natural physical properties of the universe astounds me. I don't think saying
it's 'miraculous' is any big stretch.
Don't think I ever said I was an atheist before though, at least not in this
thread! I suppose I would have said it at points in the past, but not so much
now. I'm certainly not subscribed to any known, organized religion, but I'm not
going to rule out the possibility of a Creator, hell, I don't know..
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/
found this interesting.
-The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the
youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured
died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It
enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the
same time.
maybe things haven't changed to much?
JEH..Your point? God? No god?
The point is that we have solid evidence that Homo Habilis, a creature
that resembled modern humans in many ways and yet was not a modern
human, lived here on Earth for several million years before dying
out. This says nothing about whether or not there is a God, but it
does indicate that Genesis is not literally true.

As I have explained before, most Christians believe in both evolution
and the Bible, because they are not constrained by a need to believe
that Genesis is literally true. There is no conflict between learning
the true natural history of this planet and a belief in God.

- Bob T.
bo dark
2007-08-09 16:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by bo dark
Post by ruylopez
Well, yeah, I do think the whole thing is kind of miraculous, but I don't mean
to imply that it could only have been created by God. It's just freaking
amazing to me the complexity of modern life, just look at the human brain for
example, how incredibly amazingly complicated .. far, far more powerful than any
computer we have ever created. The way these things can arise by totally
natural physical properties of the universe astounds me. I don't think saying
it's 'miraculous' is any big stretch.
Don't think I ever said I was an atheist before though, at least not in this
thread! I suppose I would have said it at points in the past, but not so much
now. I'm certainly not subscribed to any known, organized religion, but I'm not
going to rule out the possibility of a Creator, hell, I don't know..
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/
found this interesting.
-The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the
youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured
died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It
enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the
same time.
maybe things haven't changed to much?
JEH..Your point? God? No god?
I'm not making a point about whether there is a God or not a God,the
point in the article is that a species they thought had ceased to be
actually co-existed with what is essentially modern man.My point is
that it is the same as today,men and various monkey and ape species
live at the same time.I personally believe in God.
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-10 03:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by bo dark
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by bo dark
Post by ruylopez
Well, yeah, I do think the whole thing is kind of miraculous, but I don't mean
to imply that it could only have been created by God. It's just freaking
amazing to me the complexity of modern life, just look at the human brain for
example, how incredibly amazingly complicated .. far, far more powerful than any
computer we have ever created. The way these things can arise by totally
natural physical properties of the universe astounds me. I don't think saying
it's 'miraculous' is any big stretch.
Don't think I ever said I was an atheist before though, at least not in this
thread! I suppose I would have said it at points in the past, but not so much
now. I'm certainly not subscribed to any known, organized religion, but I'm not
going to rule out the possibility of a Creator, hell, I don't know..
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/
found this interesting.
-The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the
youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured
died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It
enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the
same time.
maybe things haven't changed to much?
JEH..Your point? God? No god?
I'm not making a point about whether there is a God or not a God,the
point in the article is that a species they thought had ceased to be
actually co-existed with what is essentially modern man.My point is
that it is the same as today,men and various monkey and ape species
live at the same time.I personally believe in God.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
JEH... you've made a decision, yes, that God exists...I am still
questioning...

But if the Big Bang occurred 14 or 15 billion years ago, and if as the
evolutionists suggest that it is only a matter the right cosmos mix,
the right recipe to create life, why is there life on only one obscure
little planet on the out-of-the way tail of one galaxy that contains
millions of planets, at the same time being only one galaxy among
millions of galaxies...That's a lot of real estate over a lot time.

Given the amazing rapidity of earthlings advancing from electric
lights to surveying the universe in a miniscule 200 years, we can
only imagine how advanced an older planet's life forms would be, if in
fact life did exist on one of these planets.

It seems incredible to me to believe that we are alone in the
cosmos...But if it turns out that we are alone, I would be hard
pressed to argue that creation of life was an accidental occurrance.

Of course, if life has not occurred accidentally, what ever way could
it have occurred but at the hand of an intelligent creator.
Bob T.
2007-08-10 14:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by bo dark
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by bo dark
Post by ruylopez
Well, yeah, I do think the whole thing is kind of miraculous, but I don't mean
to imply that it could only have been created by God. It's just freaking
amazing to me the complexity of modern life, just look at the human brain for
example, how incredibly amazingly complicated .. far, far more powerful than any
computer we have ever created. The way these things can arise by totally
natural physical properties of the universe astounds me. I don't think saying
it's 'miraculous' is any big stretch.
Don't think I ever said I was an atheist before though, at least not in this
thread! I suppose I would have said it at points in the past, but not so much
now. I'm certainly not subscribed to any known, organized religion, but I'm not
going to rule out the possibility of a Creator, hell, I don't know..
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/
found this interesting.
-The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the
youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured
died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It
enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the
same time.
maybe things haven't changed to much?
JEH..Your point? God? No god?
I'm not making a point about whether there is a God or not a God,the
point in the article is that a species they thought had ceased to be
actually co-existed with what is essentially modern man.My point is
that it is the same as today,men and various monkey and ape species
live at the same time.I personally believe in God.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
JEH... you've made a decision, yes, that God exists...I am still
questioning...
But if the Big Bang occurred 14 or 15 billion years ago, and if as the
evolutionists suggest that it is only a matter the right cosmos mix,
the right recipe to create life, why is there life on only one obscure
little planet on the out-of-the way tail of one galaxy that contains
millions of planets, at the same time being only one galaxy among
millions of galaxies...That's a lot of real estate over a lot time.
Do you actually read any of the replies to your posts? As I and
several others have pointed out to you several times, we have no way
of knowing how many times life has arisen on other planets. There is
some evidence that life might have existed on Mars at one point, and
Mars is much too small and cold to be a good planet for life.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Given the amazing rapidity of earthlings advancing from electric
lights to surveying the universe in a miniscule 200 years, we can
only imagine how advanced an older planet's life forms would be, if in
fact life did exist on one of these planets.
You overlooked the 4.5 billion years after life arose and before
humans had electric lights. We have no way of knowing whether life
arose more quickly or less quickly on Earth than is typical.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
It seems incredible to me to believe that we are alone in the
cosmos...But if it turns out that we are alone, I would be hard
pressed to argue that creation of life was an accidental occurrance.
It seems incredible to me that you post the same silly statements over
and over without once acknowledging the many posts debunking your
arguments.

- Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Of course, if life has not occurred accidentally, what ever way could
it have occurred but at the hand of an intelligent creator.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
KilgoreTrout
2007-08-10 15:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob T.
It seems incredible to me that you post the same silly statements over
and over without once acknowledging the many posts debunking your
arguments.
- Bob T.
Bait. Stinky, stinky bait.

He's chummin', Bob.

Yep... I bit, too.

Cheers.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-10 15:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by bo dark
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by bo dark
Post by ruylopez
Well, yeah, I do think the whole thing is kind of miraculous, but I don't mean
to imply that it could only have been created by God. It's just freaking
amazing to me the complexity of modern life, just look at the human brain for
example, how incredibly amazingly complicated .. far, far more powerful than any
computer we have ever created. The way these things can arise by totally
natural physical properties of the universe astounds me. I don't think saying
it's 'miraculous' is any big stretch.
Don't think I ever said I was an atheist before though, at least not in this
thread! I suppose I would have said it at points in the past, but not so much
now. I'm certainly not subscribed to any known, organized religion, but I'm not
going to rule out the possibility of a Creator, hell, I don't know..
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/
found this interesting.
-The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the
youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured
died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It
enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the
same time.
maybe things haven't changed to much?
JEH..Your point? God? No god?
I'm not making a point about whether there is a God or not a God,the
point in the article is that a species they thought had ceased to be
actually co-existed with what is essentially modern man.My point is
that it is the same as today,men and various monkey and ape species
live at the same time.I personally believe in God.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
JEH... you've made a decision, yes, that God exists...I am still
questioning...
But if the Big Bang occurred 14 or 15 billion years ago, and if as the
evolutionists suggest that it is only a matter the right cosmos mix,
the right recipe to create life, why is there life on only one obscure
little planet on the out-of-the way tail of one galaxy that contains
millions of planets, at the same time being only one galaxy among
millions of galaxies...That's a lot of real estate over a lot time.
Do you actually read any of the replies to your posts? As I and
several others have pointed out to you several times, we have no way
of knowing how many times life has arisen on other planets. There is
some evidence that life might have existed on Mars at one point, and
Mars is much too small and cold to be a good planet for life.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Given the amazing rapidity of earthlings advancing from electric
lights to surveying the universe in a miniscule 200 years, we can
only imagine how advanced an older planet's life forms would be, if in
fact life did exist on one of these planets.
You overlooked the 4.5 billion years after life arose and before
humans had electric lights. We have no way of knowing whether life
arose more quickly or less quickly on Earth than is typical.
JEH...Far from overlooking those 4.5 billion years, they are central
to my point...If creation were a matter of chance, and evolution so
automatic, how is it possible, after a gazillion opportunities for
life over that span of time, that we have only one instance of life,
to the best of our knowledge.

Very often, posters post an answer without actually reading my post,
as you did here...Responding then, is pointless.
Post by Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
It seems incredible to me to believe that we are alone in the
cosmos...But if it turns out that we are alone, I would be hard
pressed to argue that creation of life was an accidental occurrance.
It seems incredible to me that you post the same silly statements over
and over without once acknowledging the many posts debunking your
arguments.
- Bob T.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Of course, if life has not occurred accidentally, what ever way could
it have occurred but at the hand of an intelligent creator.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Maverick
2007-08-10 07:08:53 UTC
Permalink
In a number of cultures, anthropologists have found female skulls with
drill holes at the top. Eventually, they determined it was early
man's attempt at the perfect woman.
Gary Carson
2007-08-06 17:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by ruylopez
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...And what I think you "scientific" musings overlook is the the
single cell, before it cooperates with other cells to make a life
system exist, must first decide, intelligently, what it needs to
accomplish, and what must be done to accomplish that next thing.
Such intelligent decision-making cannot evolve.
Sure it can.
First off it's rather a misnomer to call that intelligence. Are single
cells
intelligent?
JEH...Anything that chooses to do this rather than that, gets my vote
as intelligence.
Post by ruylopez
Certainly not, but they're capable of specializing in this way.
For example every cell in your body has all the DNA needed to run any sort of
cell, yet your cells somehow know
JEH...How do unintelligent cells "somehow know" what's in their best
interest??
They don't.

Some do what's in their best interest and thrive, some don't and die.

Those that thrive, reproduce.

It has nothing to do with choice, nothing to do with knowing.

Please go to your room and pray for your soul and leave the big kids alone.

 
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
KilgoreTrout
2007-08-06 23:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by Schmedley
And,
that fundamental, unalienable worth only has validity if one acknowledges
the true source of that worth and dignity.God.
The liberties of every American citizen, including those of
Chris Matthews, hang in the balance if we get the answer to that question
wrong.
Another Littlebrain who needs a "God" to define his rights and worth
as a human being?
What if God was proven to NOT exist...? Would those rights then cease
to exist?
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist,
It *is* pretty hard to prove God doesn't exist. Some would say, darn near
impossible.

Others would say lose the "darn". And the "near".

However, from what follows, it's clear you don't have a clue *why* it's so
darn hard.

Oh, and, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP ADDING "JEH" to preface yer responses.

This isn't Usenet circa 1995, bud. We can figure out which parts are
yours just fine.

That "JEH" crap is annoying! I feel like you're gonna break into some
doofus slacker routine:

"Like, jeh, dewd, don't worry, man, be happy (and stuff)".


when the various
Post by j***@earthlink.net
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
That's cuz IT WASN'T HAPPENSTANCE, you insufferable ignoramus! How many
times has someone pointed this out to you in the past? Yet, dishonestly,
you continue to repeat this crap, cuz it "sounds" good to yer reason-deaf
ears.

At least *learn* the science you're attempting to ridicule. One thing
I'll never get about people... there are often all kinds of *good*,
*honest* reasons to be critical toward concepts like this... but y'all 1/2
ass it, and go with simple-minded arguments (or, better, slogans) that are
JUST RONG.RONG.RONG. Yeah, you read that right. You don't DESERVE the
'W'!

G'day, sir.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
I SAID "G'DAY"!

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

_______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-08-06 23:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by Schmedley
And,
that fundamental, unalienable worth only has validity if one acknowledges
the true source of that worth and dignity.God.
The liberties of every American citizen, including those of
Chris Matthews, hang in the balance if we get the answer to that question
wrong.
Another Littlebrain who needs a "God" to define his rights and worth
as a human being?
What if God was proven to NOT exist...? Would those rights then cease
to exist?
JEH...Pretty hard to prove God does not exist,
It *is* pretty hard to prove God doesn't exist. Some would say, darn near
impossible.
Others would say lose the "darn". And the "near".
However, from what follows, it's clear you don't have a clue *why* it's so
darn hard.
Oh, and, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP ADDING "JEH" to preface yer responses.
This isn't Usenet circa 1995, bud. We can figure out which parts are
yours just fine.
That "JEH" crap is annoying! I feel like you're gonna break into some
"Like, jeh, dewd, don't worry, man, be happy (and stuff)".
when the various
Post by j***@earthlink.net
components of living creatures are so complex..(such as, for example,
the cooperating cells system that allows living species to see, to
name but one), while the various creatures that use these cooperating
cell systems tailor the sight system to the individual species while
still retaining the sight system's basic elements..
Such complexities could happen by chance, but it is counterintuitive
to believe all the systems of life came from happenstance.
That's cuz IT WASN'T HAPPENSTANCE, you insufferable ignoramus! How many
times has someone pointed this out to you in the past? Yet, dishonestly,
you continue to repeat this crap, cuz it "sounds" good to yer reason-deaf
ears.
At least *learn* the science you're attempting to ridicule. One thing
I'll never get about people... there are often all kinds of *good*,
*honest* reasons to be critical toward concepts like this... but y'all 1/2
ass it, and go with simple-minded arguments (or, better, slogans) that are
JUST RONG.RONG.RONG. Yeah, you read that right. You don't DESERVE the
'W'!
G'day, sir.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Thinking these systems occur by happenstance, would be someone who
brain, however big, is not as big as his ego.
I SAID "G'DAY"!
Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
JEH...Your post? All heat, no light!!
Follow
2007-08-05 17:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
My choices are Rudy Guiliani or Duncan Hunter...They've got the right
stuff, IMHO.
Ron Paul, no others.




Follow  :)


_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2007-08-05 21:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Follow
Post by j***@earthlink.net
My choices are Rudy Guiliani or Duncan Hunter...They've got the right
stuff, IMHO.
Ron Paul, no others.
Yes, but Ron Paul doesn't think the Prez is supposed to be a World Leader.

Clearly God intended for America to Rule the World, otherwise he wouldn't have
created us speaking English.

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
arlo payne
2007-08-05 21:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
Post by Follow
Post by j***@earthlink.net
My choices are Rudy Guiliani or Duncan Hunter...They've got the right
stuff, IMHO.
Ron Paul, no others.
Yes, but Ron Paul doesn't think the Prez is supposed to be a World Leader.
Clearly God intended for America to Rule the World, otherwise he wouldn't have
created us speaking English.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
We speak American not english :)



_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Maverick
2007-08-07 19:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Here are the choices:

1. The Bulldyke- She could do the job except she'd be too focused on
doing the reverse of Bush rather than do what makes sense.
2. The Mormon- He reminds me of beachwood. He's stiff, bleached, and
not very densely packed with atoms.
3. The Baggage- Guliani carries more baggage than Southwest airlines,
but he's refreshingly free of party politics
4. The Negro- Admits to cocaine. I can almost see whitehouse being
renamed the crackhouse.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...