fractals, the universe...let's get into it

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gordon Gekko, Sep 15, 2002.

  1. the universe is an amazing thing.

    a few minutes ago i got out of my car and started walking towards my house and i stumbled upon a toad on the ground. its appearance blended in so well with its surroundings, i would never have seen it if it didn't jump. as i got up close to look at it, it did not even move. it just stayed there motionless.

    the people who do not appreciate evolution are missing out on a beautiful thing imo. the reason the toad is alive today is because over time, the ones that blended in the best to their surroundings survived. over time, it just gets better and better. also, the fact that the toad knew to remain motionless is another process of evolution. the toads that kept hopping around in danger probably tend to get noticed and eaten. the ones that remained still and just blended in with their surroundings are the ones that have survived.

    it sounds simple, but the fact this is the process of how things work is AMAZING's perfect!



    #31     Sep 15, 2002
  2. If you think nature is awesome (as I do), imagine the Mind behind it!

    <center><a href=""><img src=""></img></a>

    <font size=1><i>See how well the Gecko blends in with his surroundings!:p </i></font></center>
    #32     Sep 15, 2002
  3. As far as a mind behind nature you may want to read "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku (a totally credible and scientific book, but an easy read). He gets into some of the experiments that was done about the start of life here on earth. He is as well an avid envirmentalist that also see's the beauty of nature and does something about it.
    #33     Sep 15, 2002
  4. chas!

    of all people then, you should love evolution! do you? i don't know many religious people that accept it. i really don't see how you can question it though. just look at your picture!
    #34     Sep 15, 2002
  5. design, not accident, amigo! I think it's possible that natural selection has taken place, but not as the prime mover of nature.
    #35     Sep 15, 2002
  6. i haven't read that "hyperspace" book, but i've been meaning to for a while.

    here's a similar book that i LOVE:
    #36     Sep 15, 2002
  7. chas,

    i am open to both the designer and accident concepts. since i don't know for sure, i have to accept all possibilities. i would like to ask you. if there is a creator/designer, who created the creator? and then, who created the creator of the creator? again, creator or no creator, i am open to ALL possibilities.

    i don't want this to get into a religion debate. please don't answer my creator of the creator question with something from the bible. even if you believe your religion (which is fine), for the sake of this argument, let's say you can only rely on scientific methods. how would you then answer the question?
    #37     Sep 15, 2002
  8. Do I get to put in a plug for my favorite?
    <a href=""><img src=""></img></a>
    #38     Sep 15, 2002
  9. Well, for starters, the cartoon is not a response to this post.

    About the 'uncaused cause,' yes, that is a most interesting question. There really is only one answer for it. Unfortunately, you have put that answer out of bounds.

    An analogy might be apt. If someone were to ask me to attribute the creation of the microprocessor to silicon and heat, but forbade me to include any references to man, I would not be able to answer his question. Do you see my point?
    #39     Sep 15, 2002
  10. One would have to examine microprocessor and conclude that an intelligence superior to that found in sand and heat was responsible for the obvious order and function of it. Perhaps the microprocessor 'evolved.' But why? What impetus is there for a spontaneous, undirected evolution of something fit for such a specific purpose?

    This evidence exists in all nature.

    Thanks for asking GG.
    #40     Sep 15, 2002