Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Not even a nice try. Millikan measured it. Einstein explained it.
It is you who is not awake. The molecular clock is garbage as I have already shown and you have not refuted a single point I made about it. There are several reasons for this the most essential one is that we do not have any examples of half billion year old DNA, 100 million year old DNA or even million year old DNA to make comparisons to. Therefore all the samples we have (with a few exceptions that can be counted on the fingers of one hand) are of current DNA. So how can one tell how far current DNA is from millions of year old DNA if one does not have something to compare it to? The answer is one cannot. The second problem is that SUPPOSEDLY all organisms now living are equally far apart from the first life as all others, so to take one as an example of 'what is older' is totally fallacious. It is using the theory of evolution (how species supposedly descended from each other) to prove how species supposedly descended from each other. This is circular reasoning and utter nonsense. There are more problems with the molecular clock also. Since some creatures have much shorter generations than others, and mutations supposedly occur at each reproduction (how else could they happen!) the 'mutational clock' (for that is what is really being talked about here) should be going at a completely different speed for elephanst than for flys, yet evolutionists moronically claim that it goes at the same speed.
No scientific evidence, eh? Tell me, what classification do mushrooms and jellyfish fall into? Are they multicellulars, or communities of single-cellulars?
They are multi-cellular. And the jump from single-celled to many cells is humongous particularly in animals, a jump which could never have occurred. As to the ribosome, that has nothing to do with multi-cellularity, it is the splitting of organs and functions that is the problem.
I am perfectly within my rights to address straightening out your nomenclature, as well as your claims, in any order I care to.
Which again evades the point about homology not being a legitimate way of figuring out descent. You keep trying to divert from the point that bones can only be categorized by homology (because they have so little information) and homologous traits occur in widely different species which in no way have an ancestor/descendant relationship. So yes, paleontology is nonsense.
Oh sure, just say 'abracadabra sis-boom-bah' and you get sexuality. Tell me another joke. For one thing you need diploid organisms for it, for another you need a system to mix the features of the two sexes correctly. For another you need sexual organs, and a totally new reproductive system. Yeah sure, just 'abracadabra' does it.
Yup, I guess no scientists want to make an easy million bucks by writing up a hypothesis for abiogenesis. Tell me another joke.
And the answer to you was that whether one states that the present reality is indeed real or a dream does not change that reality and that either way you need an intelligence at the end of the trail. This is why materialism is total nonsense.
A breakthru!--,
In spite of your insults you have failed to address the point above - ie that materialism is indefensible and that 'naturalism' is just a semantic excuse for trying to avoid the questions that destroy the basis for such a view.
Funny, but it does not disprove the basic premise of the statement 'I think therefore I am' - that there is intelligence in the Universe and it has no materialistic basis.
So THAT'S what it means. I would never have guessed that in a million years.
Why don't you go to bed early tonight. It will increase the average relevance of Freeper threads until the morning when you tell all that you are on again.
So THAT'S what it means. I would never have guessed that in a million years.
It's funny how many times I have to point out the obvious on these threads and I still get an argument about it as donh has been doing.
Asserts, not proves.
Asserts, not proves.
I disagree. Descartes is a mathematician and a proof is the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. As the article said:
A second possible criticism is that the idea of infinite perfection is 'materially false and can therefore be from nothing.' More simply, the suggestion is that the idea of infinite perfection is an incoherent concept, and thus needs no explanation beyond itself. However, Descartes argues that the notion of infinite perfection is clear and distinct in the highest degree, and thus requires an explanation. (Descartes and Arnauld continue the discussion of this problem in the Fourth Objections and Replies.)
A third possible criticism is that perhaps we are potentially infinitely perfect, and thus produced the idea of infinite perfection from our hidden potential. Descartes gives three replies to this third criticism. First, if his potential perfection can be actualized only gradually (through a gradual increase in knowledge), this implies that he is finite. And, if he is a finite being, he could not produce the idea of infinite perfection. Second, he argues that even if his knowledge would increase gradually over an infinite amount of time, at no point would he have infinite knowledge. Third, he argues that the objective being of an idea cannot be produced by a merely potential being.
Another criticism raised in the Fifth Objections (II, 205ff) is that it is impossible for a finite mind to comprehend an infinite idea of God, just as (in Descartes' account) it is impossible for a finite mind to generate an infinite idea. In other words, human beings do not have an idea of God in the sense needed by Descartes' argument. Descartes replies by distinguishing between a fully adequate idea of something (which he claims a finite mind cannot have even of the most simple entity) and an 'understanding suited to the scale' of our finite intellect. In other words, of course our positive idea of God's infinity is not an adequate comprehension of God, but it is sufficient for us to know (a) that the idea could not have originated with us; and (b) that it is the idea of an infinitely perfect being. In the 'Preface' to the Meditations, Descartes discusses a criticism of this argument as it appeared in the Discourses (II, 7). There, he implicitly makes a similar distinction between the finitude of the ideas of our minds, and the possibility of finite ideas representing infinite entities (and thus having non-finite objective reality).
Following a similar line of reasoning, Descartes concludes at the end of Meditation 5 that this idea of God must be innate in him, as 'the mark of the craftsman stamped on his work' (II,35). It is from this unfalsifiable mark, then, that God's existence can be known. Recall our discussion of Descartes' views on the representational nature of mental contents, at the end of the section on Meditation 1 above: the idea of God is the only idea the mere inner characterisitics of which allow us to deduce with certainty the origin of the idea.
What's beyond the veil of the material is what is the real.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.