Posted on 11/14/2007 4:00:52 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Life is an inherent property of this particular universe.
Information processing is a different story. At some point you run into the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the various gyrations electrons go through when presented with quantum mechancs.
No doubt we have access to other dimensions ~ St. Paul theorized several of them (body, mind, soul, heart, spirit). Other groups have thought up even more of them, and each may be demonstrated intuitively or objectively ~ such is the nature of thought processes at our level of development.
No doubt we can't even imagine the half of it.
The proof of my statement arises out a consideration of what are called "irrational numbers". In nature ALL values for "irrational numbers" are not selected. We simply never see any structure that uses some of them ~ there are holes in their sequence.
"codes" necessarily find themselves RESTRICTED to the values available for use.
Why all the values aren't available is beyond me ~
Now, concerning "code evolution" once you have one that works, it may be added to. That's like putting a fuel injector on your antique car and tossing away the curburetor. The car's still there, it's still antique, but it gets better gas mileage.
Any new additions to the code will arise out of the same chemistry that provided the initial parts. The genome may well have some say-so in what may be added. SOmeday we'll be able to "ask the genome".
“It has already begun. Darwin’s TOE is on the way out. It’s only a matter of time.”
They’ve been saying that since the 1860’s sunshine, so don’t hold your breath....
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans — 13%
Even when you mix evolution with God and add it to the strictly materialist numbers above, all the Evos have managed to come up with is two quintiles:
Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans — 27%
The next series of numbers speak for themselves:
God created humans in present form
All Americans — 55%
FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…
Creationism and evolution
All Americans — 65%
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
Like I said, time is on our side. Darwinism is but a blip on the vast expanse of the multi-millennia Creationist radar screen.
There’s something screwy about that poll. They’ve got 65% wanting to teach creationism *and* evolution, and 37% wanting to teach creationism *instead of* evolution. That’s 102%, and they haven’t even counted the people who don’t want them to teach creationism at all—there must be some.
==Darwin explains that each capital letter represents species of a widespread genus
Hypothetical, no data
==that each horizontal line represents a thousand generations (or even better, 10,000)
Hypothetical, no data
==and that each small letter-number combination represents a new variant in the species
Hypothetical, no data
I am not saying that it is, but if that is all education can produce, what a waste of education.
That’s not what “hypothetical” means. Do you believe there are such things as genera, species, and generations? Then saying “let this line represent a thousand generations” is not hypothetical.
I repeat, can you do even that much with the degeneration chart?
The Y axis represents the genetical richness of the original created kinds. The X axis represents the loss of genetical richness over time. Same difference.
==That’s not what “hypothetical” means.
Darwin’s entire chart was hypthetical = conjecture. None of the species or generational time frames pertained to actual data. They all existed in his own head. He was using the chart to help the reader understand an idea. In this case, natural selection.
An axis doesn’t show gain or loss, it is a straight line.
Darwin did no better. The one chart in his whole book contained NO DATA.
Your X vs Y data plot without data does not conform to any actual data, neither did the presenter of the chart point out that it was speculative, nor did they propose an experiment to fill in the data and confirm their predictions. They just threw up an X vs Y plot with drawn in data, said ‘this is how it is’, it being an undefined term “richness of the geneticals” plotted against an undefined and unmentioned span of time. A Rorschach Creationist ink blot, you see in it what you want to see, but there isn’t anything there.
That this is the creme de la creme of the evidence you present is kind of funny. You can have this if you wish. I will take multiple unrelated conforming and replicable lines of evidence that point to ancient ages of the earth long before mankind, the even older age of the universe, and the interrelatedness of life due to common descent as shown by the fossil record and Molecular Genetics data. I accept this data for much the same reason it is accepted worldwide by people of all different faiths, and for the same reason that it is accepted by most Christians; everyone working in Science worldwide no matter their faith finds the same lines of evidence conform to this model, replication of their results time and time again, worldwide, no matter the theology of the Scientist.
It’s a reasonable question. On one hand, we’re told that science doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural, on the other, how science has revealed that a lot of what was once thought supernatural had physical explanations.
How could science do that without exploring the supernatural?
There’s still an awful lot of inexplicable things out there that occur; things that seem to violate the natural laws that have been observed. So do we ignore that or not? If we ignore that which we can’t explain simply because it’s been labeled supernatural, we lose the opportunity to learn something new.
Living in a mileiu steeped in progressivism, even as Darwin was, everyone is bound to be influenced to think of things this way.
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.