Has this been posted? <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ImvlS8PLIo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ImvlS8PLIo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
From the NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/nyregion/10alone.html for 777, otherwise known as the all knowing, all seeing, if you don't believe it just ask him. "Humans were genetically engineered by extraterrestrials, he said, pointing to ancient texts to prove it."
nice dodge. (not really, at all) The question wasn't revised, more givens were provided, the question remained the same. I'll take your non-answer as an addmission that your lord god, Dawkins, is holy ground not to be doubted lest you be smitten down by the Darwianites. Sounding smart is only half the battle. Lobbing charges of "Creationist" just makes you look pathetic.
Revised : âImproved or brought up to dateâ erm.... you revised the question.. and you added another. It's not that difficult to check back. Even for a Creationist. You got a specific answer which you are obviously choosing to ignore as if it were never made. That's what's pathetic. Trying to pretend an answer is a non answer is the same sort of dumb reaction as pretending no religion is a religion. It's dumb enough though. Even for a Creationist.
Ok, I'll pose it to you again ... Please draw your conclusions, based on the givens, and not on your belief that I am a creationist. (which you have absolutely no proof, an ironic charge coming from such a dispassioned observer of empirical evidence) ( the "revised" cannard is good cover, if the givens are considered part of the question, then, indeed it was revised,another given was provided to assit you in drawing your conclusion. A favor to you, per-se.) Quiz time: Given: Dawkins proposed that, indeed, life on earth may have been designed. Dawkins declared that the designers would thmselves have been a result of some "darwinian process". Dawkins declared that Darwian evolution (dirt ==> every species) is an established fact, as much as any established fact in science. (perhaps as established as global warming) Question: (Select the correct answer based on the givens) A. Darwinian evolution (dirt==> every species) did not work on earth but did work somewhere else. B. Dawkins is an idiot C. (Your answer here)
Answer Time: (Again!) I've revised my initial response and repeated the explanation for it, in light of your own revision/update/extra question whatever, which you're also denying you made. Typical of a Creationist. Given: A. You can make up as many irrelevant, subjective , misinformed, facetious statements and call them Givens as you like. "C. (Your answer here)" Correct Answer: Is it...you're a superstitious numbskull? The Universe is designed; to any sentient thing that discerns patterns. Intelligent design is another matter altogether and if not an intelligence from "Darwinian" evolution , then it is a question begging infinite regress of no explanation. Dawkins +1. You -1 The Creationists usual epic fail. -------------------------------------- Non of that will alter the fact you are ignoring the answer offered and hand waving it away . But that won't change anything for in doing so, you are now chasing your own tail. In that way no progress can a Creationist make. Evolution is as an established fact as much as gravity is. Evolution stands as a theory as much as the theory of gravity stands. Dawkins +1 again You -1 again The Creationist's usual epic failure - compounded.
There is no hedge, no contradiction. It may be alien or strange to you, but I consistently find myself on the boundary of beliefs. Also, I find it hard to dismiss billions of people and simply trash what they believe in the "opium of the masses" bin. It is certainly possible to hold two opposing views in one head. In fact, it may well be one possible definition of human intelligence.
First, thanks for the outstanding link. And here is my objection. All these guys talk about absolute nothingness, from which the universe sprang in the form of a quantum fluctuation, where energy is conserved as proof that universes can spring from nothing. But then he starts talking about the foamy nature of this nothingness, and in fact we learn that nothingness is not nothing, it is something that exists, but in a way that is too fleeting for us to measure, at least directly, and hence we somehow have a license to call it nothing. Why no one challenges him on this is beyond me. So nothing for these guys is something we can't measure, but can infer logically must have a physics. Well, I am sorry, but that is not nothing. In fact, the physics of nothing look very [fractally] like the physics of something to me. That there is no matter or energy is not the point! That this "nothingness" obeys some laws of physics is! It's the software that counts, not the hardware. And this leads me to my fundamental theorem of existence: As long as you describe universes as physics at each level deeper down the rabbit hole, it will always lead to my rebuttal: who wrote the software that we call the laws of physics? It seems to me that the laws of nothing can be anything you wan it to be, and yet there appears to be real physics going on in nothing. Why should virtual particles come into existence that look like short-lived versions of "real particles" ? If these guys instead said, at the lowest level it is completely random "energy" fluctuations, and somehow a virtual particle that has real physics once in a while emerges from this randomness and has a physics, I would be somewhat convinced [Why do we only see the particles with a physics? Why can't we see stuff that has no physics?]. But "nothing" by these guys is defined as a virtual particle that lives for an unimaginable amount of time, but that looks exactly like normal particles, and I am supposed to believe this is the argument to end all arguments? Ahahaha, that sounds like circular logic to me. It's a bunch of shit.
This Universe was created, or formed if you will, into existence with the properties of physics, science in general, all of which we are just now beginning to scratch the surface. But the err is to assume that we can measure or define whatever created it or what plane or dimension that existed before this one. The concept of time we embrace exists as the byproduct of mass and motion, but that does not mean that time existed, as we know it, in a precursor dimension. I would go as far to assume that what ever existed or exists that we were born from, is beyond our ability to understand or even conceive. Without touching into religious aspects of a designed prior existence it would appear to me that the complexity of this universe, negates the idea of randomness. Fwiw,