quote:

An alternative explanatory proposal is something operative in our Universe that changes the probabilities.

quote:

Well in an embryo, for example, initially identical cells follow different developmental paths depending solely on their location.

quote:

So current thinking tends toward the operation of some kind of field.

quote:

Haldane, Dyson, Bohm, and other scientists of like mind have come to their conclusions based on a knowledge of the fundamental processes of nature that greatly exceeds both yours and mine, and I am not prepared to dismiss their ideas simply because some guy on the Internet thinks he has found a fatal flaw in the reasoning of one or all of them.

quote:

What I did appeal to was respect for the fact that their knowledge far exceeds either yours or mine, a fact you obviously view as irrelevant.

quote:

I see you trimmed that quote to omit the questions I asked. Apparently you don't care to have to confront them. Quelle surprise. Can I look forward to less armchair psychoanalysis and some direct answers in your next post?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Haldane, Dyson, Bohm, and other scientists of like mind have come to their conclusions based on a knowledge of the fundamental processes of nature that greatly exceeds both yours and mine, and I am not prepared to dismiss their ideas simply because some guy on the Internet thinks he has found a fatal flaw in the reasoning of one or all of them.

Where did I ask you to be dismissive? . . . Dyson's reasoning about the unpredictable behavior of atoms being down to choice is flawed. Try to deal with it without being petty and boring. You might stop listening to your own light socket.

That's a pretty bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. But skipping over the armchair psychoanalysis, which occupies most of the rest of your post, I'll just note that you trimmed the quote you posted in order to omit the questions I asked. Apparently you don't care to have to confront them. Quelle surprise. Perhaps I can look forward to some direct answers in your next post?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Argh, I see you replied as I was editing. I didn't realize you were in the topic. Apologies for any confusion.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Haldane, Dyson, Bohm, and other scientists of like mind have come to their conclusions based on a knowledge of the fundamental processes of nature that greatly exceeds both yours and mine, and I am not prepared to dismiss their ideas simply because some guy on the Internet thinks he has found a fatal flaw in the reasoning of one or all of them.

Where did I ask you to be dismissive? . . . Dyson's reasoning about the unpredictable behavior of atoms being down to choice is flawed. Try to deal with it without being petty and boring. You might stop listening to your own light socket.

That's a pretty bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. But skipping over the armchair psychoanalysis, which occupies most of the rest of your post, I'll just note that you trimmed the quote you posted in order to omit the questions I asked. Apparently you don't care to have to confront them. Quelle surprise. Perhaps I can look forward to some direct answers in your next post?

There were no questions from you in the post containing Dyson's quote. wtf?

Wrong medication, maybe? The questions were in the post that you trimmed, then quoted without them and responded to. Where else would they be? Watching you claim that there were no questions in a different post is rather unsettling. Do you know your name? What year it is? Etc.?

K.

quote:

One doesn't have to be a Creationist to doubt the notion that pure random chance is at the bottom of everything. The fatal weakness of the Creationist position is a Creator who is separate from his creation, a sort of "Cosmic Craftsman". Neither religion in general, nor the Bible in particular, are required to intuit the operation of an intelligence within Nature.

quote:

Well, we've known about electromagnetic fields in biology for quite a long time, for example Burr, and just to pick a more recent example at random, Nuccitelli. The problem is, there is no explanation in a clump of undifferentiated cells for an organized field directing their development. Sheldrake is probably the fellow who has devoted the most effort to the question. There's a YouTube video of one of his talks here.

quote:

But be warned, the mere mention of his name causes some people to froth at the mouth and become combative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

In order to make choices there needs be an awareness of possibilities . . . What evidence is there that atoms have awareness?

Haldane, Dyson, Bohm, and other scientists of like mind have come to their conclusions based on a knowledge of the fundamental processes of nature that greatly exceeds both yours and mine, and I am not prepared to dismiss their ideas simply because some guy on the Internet thinks he has found a fatal flaw in the reasoning of one or all of them. Indeed, one might ask what kind of evidence you would like. What evidence is there that human beings have awareness? So far, everything appears to be due to electro-chemical signalling processes for the operation of which no conscious awareness is required.

K.

quote:



ORIGINAL: Kirata

Haldane, Dyson, Bohm, and other scientists of like mind have come to their conclusions based on a knowledge of the fundamental processes of nature that greatly exceeds both yours and mine, and I am not prepared to dismiss their ideas simply because some guy on the Internet thinks he has found a fatal flaw in the reasoning of one or all of them. Indeed, one might ask what kind of evidence you would like. What evidence is there that human beings have awareness? So far, everything appears to be due to electro-chemical signalling processes for the operation of which no conscious awareness is required.

You part you trimmed is in red.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

just quickly jumping in to say to whoremods, not specific to all the conversation youre presently having with kirata, but to part of it---the answers to your questions about parasites and the need for corrective vision and any other thing of that sort is caught up in "the fall of man."

if you use that phrase in an internet search, you will find plenty to read.

No parasites in the garden of Eden, which nobody can point to on a map, then.
Riiiight.

you can read a little about the garden of eden here: http://www.icr.org/article/where-was-garden-eden-located/

or I would suggest to you that you might want god to exist in some personal idealized form as opposed to how he and the Christian story, are presented in scripture.

quote:

on what object can we cast our eyes which may not inspire us with ideas of His power, of His wisdom, and of His goodness? it is not necessary that the rising sun should dart his fiery glories over the eastern horizon, nor that the boisterous winds should rush from their caverns and shake the lofty forest, nor that the opening clouds should pour their deluge on the plains; it is not necessary, I say, that any of these should proclaim His majesty; there is not an insect, not a vegetable, of so low an order in the Creation but is honoured with bearing marks of the attributes of its great Creator, marks not only of His power but of His wisdom and goodness. man alone, the king of this globe, the last and greatest work of the Supreme Being below the sun, man alone hath basely dishonoured his own nature, and by dishonesty, cruelty, ingratitude, and accursed treachery, hath called his Maker's goodness in question by puzzling us to account how a benevolent Being should form so imperfect and vile an animal.