I gave you a video of a man whom I asked if anyone of you knew!

I gave you Drakes math which none of you have touched one yet!

I gave you 50 papers from a site that none of you have commented on nor have read!

GET TO WORK! I have shown that I know of theories you taked about now SHOW ME YOU KNOW OF WHAT I HAVE POSTED!

Who removed 5 atoms?

What direct evidence do you have that suggests there is a "who"? If you have no evidence, then that is "faith" and should not be taught in public schools.

I have addressed this question. Remove chance.

I have addressed this question in another way too, show me a atom, show me a blackhole. In just the same way you believe in both I believe in a God/Designer.

Think harder....

Who removed 5 atoms?

What direct evidence do you have that suggests there is a "who"? If you have no evidence, then that is "faith" and should not be taught in public schools.

I have addressed this question. Remove chance.

I have addressed this question in another way too, show me a atom, show me a blackhole. In just the same way you believe in both I believe in a God/Designer.

Think harder....

I have demonstrated to you what chance is. Your definition is clearly at odds with the real definition. As for "work harder"? Ummm ... to use your words, "have you not read"? Seems you and a few others have a lot of free time on your hands.

random mutations

Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design.

It's "random", because some of those first cells of life on earth turned into what we evolved from, and the rest turned into everything else. Randomly.

Yes, what you call---Randomly.

I do not. If one random event fits into another which fits into another, ect, ect, ect, random isn't a word that we can use anymore.

Let's not beat around the bush.
A "random event" is an event with an outcome that "cannot be predicted in advance". Plain and simple.
If you can predict everything in advance, well, please prove it by going out and raking in some big lottery earnings and publicly announcing it, not only here but also on television. Then we will accept chance doesn't exist. (Call me "Thomas", ok? [smile]

On the other hand, despite knowing "Dull" will accuse me of "parsing words", if you wish to say, "We humans cannot predict some things in advance, simply because we lack certain pieces of information", well, you are welcome to do so, but don't count on everyone buying that approach. In the past 1-2 years, there was an article in Discover magazine about precisely the idea. I found it an unsatisfactory article. I do not recall what was said about attempts, if any, to test this hypothesis.

I posted about daisyworld.

Evolution without Natural Selection: Further ... - Mathematics
Department of Mathematics, King's College,. Strand, London WC2R 2LS, England. Journal of Theoretical Biology 166 (1994)
www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/staff/pt_saunders/gaiajtb.pdf

Emergent patterns in space and time from daisyworld
4Department of Mathematics, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1910/161.full.

Philosophical implications of the Gaia Theory
Using sunlight and water and nutrient minerals to grow and change. ... Lovelock offered The Daisyworld model as mathematical evidence to refute most of these ...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gaia/esp_gaia07.htm

I go pop-ups but nevertheless If I have to do homework to keep up with you I dang well expect the same from you!

As none of your summarizations in anyway clearly connects it to what I posted, the definition of a random event, I see no reason to follow your links.

Who removed 5 atoms?

What direct evidence do you have that suggests there is a "who"? If you have no evidence, then that is "faith" and should not be taught in public schools.

I have addressed this question. Remove chance.

What reason do I have to remove chance? Is there any direct evidence that suggests I should remove chance?

I have addressed this question in another way too, show me a atom, show me a blackhole. In just the same way you believe in both I believe in a God/Designer.

Think harder....

But I don't faithfully believe in an atom or a black hole. Several scientists have made their observation(s) public and supported those observation(s) with evidence. Their conclusions can be proven wrong by another scientist or scientists at any time. Until a better theory comes along, I trust the facts currently given.

I've yet to see anyone provide any direct evidence of a "god" or "God" without making an assumption or leap of faith.

@ I.D.

There are all sorts of amazing patterns in the world. All sorts of mystery. We are making great strides to unlock these mysteries. And I'd hate to burst your bubble, it's being brought to you by science, and real education. Not religion.

So for those of us who are curious to learn how the world and universe works and why it works that way, science currently is the only thing that provides that knowledge.

Faith is a separate thing entirely, and as such there is no place in science classes for it. period.

Faith belongs in classes of study related to faith and religion. (And even then only when not in a public school setting, as this is infringing on ones rights to practice/believe whatever they want)

I don't recall any catholic schools that taught creation theory in science class. (I mention this because you claim to be catholic, yet display extremely evangelical christian point of views and methodology)

---

#resist

random mutations

Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design.

It's "random", because some of those first cells of life on earth turned into what we evolved from, and the rest turned into everything else. Randomly.

Yes, what you call---Randomly.

I do not. If one random event fits into another which fits into another, ect, ect, ect, random isn't a word that we can use anymore.

Let's not beat around the bush.
A "random event" is an event with an outcome that "cannot be predicted in advance". Plain and simple.
If you can predict everything in advance, well, please prove it by going out and raking in some big lottery earnings and publicly announcing it, not only here but also on television. Then we will accept chance doesn't exist. (Call me "Thomas", ok? [smile]

On the other hand, despite knowing "Dull" will accuse me of "parsing words", if you wish to say, "We humans cannot predict some things in advance, simply because we lack certain pieces of information", well, you are welcome to do so, but don't count on everyone buying that approach. In the past 1-2 years, there was an article in Discover magazine about precisely the idea. I found it an unsatisfactory article. I do not recall what was said about attempts, if any, to test this hypothesis.

I posted about daisyworld.

Evolution without Natural Selection: Further ... - Mathematics
Department of Mathematics, King's College,. Strand, London WC2R 2LS, England. Journal of Theoretical Biology 166 (1994)
www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/staff/pt_saunders/gaiajtb.pdf

Emergent patterns in space and time from daisyworld
4Department of Mathematics, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1910/161.full.

Philosophical implications of the Gaia Theory
Using sunlight and water and nutrient minerals to grow and change. ... Lovelock offered The Daisyworld model as mathematical evidence to refute most of these ...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gaia/esp_gaia07.htm

I go pop-ups but nevertheless If I have to do homework to keep up with you I dang well expect the same from you!

As none of your summarizations in anyway clearly connects it to what I posted, the definition of a random event, I see no reason to follow your links.

Thats it, stick your fingers in your ears and say...."la, la, la, la, la, Ad nauseam.

Who removed 5 atoms?

What direct evidence do you have that suggests there is a "who"? If you have no evidence, then that is "faith" and should not be taught in public schools.

I have addressed this question. Remove chance.

What reason do I have to remove chance? Is there any direct evidence that suggests I should remove chance?

I have addressed this question in another way too, show me a atom, show me a blackhole. In just the same way you believe in both I believe in a God/Designer.

Think harder....

But I don't faithfully believe in an atom or a black hole. Several scientists have made their observation(s) public and supported those observation(s) with evidence. Their conclusions can be proven wrong by another scientist or scientists at any time. Until a better theory comes along, I trust the facts currently given.

I've yet to see anyone provide any direct evidence of a "god" or "God" without making an assumption or leap of faith.

BHAWhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! My dear God! I don't care who you are--that was funny!

Thats it, stick your fingers in your ears and say...."la, la, la, la, la, Ad nauseam.

Or just quote poetry when your core beliefs are in conflict with one another.

---

In essence what you are asking for I.D. is that we teach our kids that the stars and sun circle around our flat world.
Don't go out in a boat!



...no thanks. We got past this long ago.

---

#resist

I gave you a video of a man whom I asked if anyone of you knew!

I gave you Drakes math which none of you have touched one yet!

I gave you 50 papers from a site that none of you have commented on nor have read!

GET TO WORK! I have shown that I know of theories you taked about now SHOW ME YOU KNOW OF WHAT I HAVE POSTED!

I don't know the maths professor from oxford, and listening to his 47 minute lecture does not appeal. Can you summarize what he has to say?

As for Drake's equation, I think Michael Crichton probably had it right:

Michael Crichton wrote:

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses—just so we’re clear—are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.

What does it have to do with any meaningful scientific study?

I missed the link to 50 pages. Does any one of them tackle the octopus eye question I asked almost 2 days ago?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

@ I.D.

There are all sorts of amazing patterns in the world. All sorts of mystery. We are making great strides to unlock these mysteries. And I'd hate to burst your bubble, it's being brought to you by science, and real education. Not religion.

So for those of us who are curious to learn how the worlds works and why it works that way, science currently is the only thing that provides that knowledge.

Faith is a separate thing entirely, and as such there is no place in science classes for it. period.

Faith belongs in classes of study related to faith and religion. (And even then only when not in a public school setting, as this is infringing on ones rights to practice/believe whatever they want)

I don't recall any catholic schools that taught creation theory in science class. (I mention this because you claim to be catholic, yet display extremely evangelical christian point of views and methodology)

One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike--and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

--Albert Einstein

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution," Pope John Paul II

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research.

A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.

And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.

One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike--and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

--Albert Einstein

So, this means you agree? with me?...????? rofl.

---

#resist

Causation is fiendishly difficult to prove.

For example, we do not understand how the many variables of a "systems model" interact with one another through the passage of time. The millions of variables at work during a summer storm cannot be reconstructed in a systems model for weather, the weather man is 50% wrong, all the time, and still has a job. Those constructing systems models in an attempt to prove the causes of global warming do not get the desired result---and then mess and mess with the math in an effort to force the preordained results. One can't prove causation with a systems model, but you can create an illusion [magic] of proof with a rigged model. Einstein's "cosmological constant" was a plug figure — to make the chalk formulas on his blackboard work. Why do the scientists cheat? They are desperate. Their honor and job depends on finding a model that works---but they are ticked because they cannot prove 'causation' with the model of a closed system. We make a system like daisyworld and look at it from the outside in. This is a step in the right direction but not a true cause, it is however a start.

Think for a time that both man and nature are open systems within the universe. The God partical is the way the Designer keeps tabs on us. We see the Designer can intervene in the creation and suspend the natural laws at will — an event we call a miracle. The guiding Hand of Design, the leap of Faith in evolution, the Cause of change.


True consciousness is impossible in a closed system. There must be an observer from outside a system in order for there to be a consciousness of the system itself. Any function designed for conscious self-observation cannot operate within a closed system because whatever was observed would be processed, conditioned, corrupted, and misconstrued by the system, like looking at a atom or blackhole. That is why those who love themselves first and only, are blind about themselves. When they look at 'self', it is not observation, it is self-projection. The observation function must be able to detach itself from the system.

When China or the old USSR treats man as a closed system, it robs him of the freedom and crushes his humanity. We cannot be fully as human beings without a measure of freedom. To the founders of the USA, this was a "self-evident" truth. The American Constitutional Republic has plenty of room for freedom because it is an open system. China has no room for freedom because they are a closed system.

More later....

One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike--and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

--Albert Einstein

So, this means you agree? with me?...????? rofl.

LOL, short quoted my quotes of another.....

As none of your summarizations in anyway clearly connects it to what I posted, the definition of a random event, I see no reason to follow your links.

Thats it, stick your fingers in your ears and say...."la, la, la, la, la, Ad nauseam.

You might think that is what is happening, but you'd be wrong.

This thread was not created solely for you and for people to debate with you.
The topic comes up a number of times. There used to be a series of "Religion Thread #n".

You might also suspect I am atheist. You'd be wrong. I am agnostic who was raised Lutheran, with two family members that work in churches. I posted about this before you came along.

You might think I am attacking you. You'd be wrong. I am trying to understand you, across your large number of posts for such a newly arrived member. And I have not yet had a chance to tell you or others not yet familiar with my current beliefs. THat is because you and your detractors are so intent on having the last word and have posted a large amount in a short amount of time, particularly for those of us who work 6 or 7 days a week for a supposedly 5 day a week job.

Right now, it is indeed you I have the most disagreements with. That is not to say I agree with all other posts in here or the other thread that come from your detractors. But because you have posted the most, and you say things I know are wrong, I point these out. That attacks the facts, not you.

I was going to post about The Drake Equation, but I suspect Bobby has now made the point.

1) Did you want us to comment on the validity of the equation?
2) Did you want us to check your arithmetic, or the arithmetic you cut and paste?

I suspect neither is the case.

I noted a number less than 1 at the end of your post. So, I take it, to you, this means we beat the odds and that must be because of God. ???

Well, maybe.

Or, since none of the factors was 0, the answer had to be non-zero. And since there cannot be a fraction of an intelligent civilization surviving beyond a certain time of "infancy", and the answer is not 0, then we must round a number between 0 and 1 up to 1.

On the other hand, with 15-17 years of increasing evidence for exoplanets, and now maybe super "Earths", the estimate should start to go up.

As Bobby said, though, these are estimates.

So, be clear. What part did you want a comment on? The equation itself, the arithmetic, the estimates, or the low final answer your estimates lead to?

[In reply to I.D's last message)
we can't wait.

---

#resist

As none of your summarizations in anyway clearly connects it to what I posted, the definition of a random event, I see no reason to follow your links.

Thats it, stick your fingers in your ears and say...."la, la, la, la, la, Ad nauseam.

You might think that is what is happening, but you'd be wrong.

This thread was not created solely for you and for people to debate with you.
The topic comes up a number of times. There used to be a series of "Religion Thread #n".

You might also suspect I am atheist. You'd be wrong. I am agnostic who was raised Lutheran, with two family members that work in churches. I posted about this before you came along.

You might think I am attacking you. You'd be wrong. I am trying to understand you, across your large number of posts for such a newly arrived member. And I have not yet had a chance to tell you or others not yet familiar with my current beliefs. THat is because you and your detractors are so intent on having the last word and have posted a large amount in a short amount of time, particularly for those of us who work 6 or 7 days a week for a supposedly 5 day a week job.

Right now, it is indeed you I have the most disagreements with. That is not to say I agree with all other posts in here or the other thread that come from your detractors. But because you have posted the most, and you say things I know are wrong, I point these out. That attacks the facts, not you.

I was going to post about The Drake Equation, but I suspect Bobby has now made the point.

1) Did you want us to comment on the validity of the equation?
2) Did you want us to check your arithmetic, or the arithmetic you cut and paste?

I suspect neither is the case.

I noted a number less than 1 at the end of your post. So, I take it, to you, this means we beat the odds and that must be because of God. ???

Well, maybe.

Or, since none of the factors was 0, the answer had to be non-zero. And since there cannot be a fraction of an intelligent civilization surviving beyond a certain time of "infancy", and the answer is not 0, then we must round a number between 0 and 1 up to 1.

On the other hand, with 15-17 years of increasing evidence for exoplanets, and now maybe super "Earths", the estimate should start to go up.

As Bobby said, though, these are estimates.

So, be clear. What part did you want a comment on? The equation itself, the arithmetic, the estimates, or the low final answer your estimates lead to?

Fair and point taken.[/quote]

It will be late tonite before I post again.

Causation is fiendishly difficult to prove.

For example, we do not understand how the many variables of a "systems model" interact with one another through the passage of time. The millions of variables at work during a summer storm cannot be reconstructed in a systems model for weather, the weather man is 50% wrong, all the time, and still has a job. Those constructing systems models in an attempt to prove the causes of global warming do not get the desired result---and then mess and mess with the math in an effort to force the preordained results. One can't prove causation with a systems model, but you can create an illusion [magic] of proof with a rigged model. Einstein's "cosmological constant" was a plug figure — to make the chalk formulas on his blackboard work. Why do the scientists cheat? They are desperate. Their honor and job depends on finding a model that works---but they are ticked because they cannot prove 'causation' with the model of a closed system. We make a system like daisyworld and look at it from the outside in. This is a step in the right direction but not a true cause, it is however a start.

Think for a time that both man and nature are open systems within the universe. The God partical is the way the Designer keeps tabs on us. We see the Designer can intervene in the creation and suspend the natural laws at will — an event we call a miracle. The guiding Hand of Design, the leap of Faith in evolution, the Cause of change.


True consciousness is impossible in a closed system. There must be an observer from outside a system in order for there to be a consciousness of the system itself. Any function designed for conscious self-observation cannot operate within a closed system because whatever was observed would be processed, conditioned, corrupted, and misconstrued by the system, like looking at a atom or blackhole. That is why those who love themselves first and only, are blind about themselves. When they look at 'self', it is not observation, it is self-projection. The observation function must be able to detach itself from the system.

When China or the old USSR treats man as a closed system, it robs him of the freedom and crushes his humanity. We cannot be fully as human beings without a measure of freedom. To the founders of the USA, this was a "self-evident" truth. The American Constitutional Republic has plenty of room for freedom because it is an open system. China has no room for freedom because they are a closed system.

More later....

I thought this was a cut and paste until I saw "partical" instead of "particle" and "China have" instead "China has" or "The Chinese have".

Furthermore, China is not closed. They have the hands on a large amount of our debt. Plus, ever heard of HSBC Bank?

ID, you must accept that with the frequency and lengths of your missives, folks will be inclined (perhaps for the sake of other gentle readers in a random act of kindness, perhaps with other non-random intent) to short quote you.

One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike--and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

--Albert Einstein

So, this means you agree? with me?...????? rofl.

LOL, short quoted my quotes of another.....