I haven't misrepresented anything. You are just dancing and dodging and refusing to answer the stated question. If you can link to where you claim I suggested the "Hindu concept of age of the Universe" be taught in schools, maybe you could back up your comments of not misrepresenting my position. If you decide to answer the question in some precise way that expresses what you would propose to teach biology students in public school as an alternative to evolution, I'll come back to the debate. If you retort with another vacuous "Design not random chance," excretion, I won't. Please, hold your breath and wait for me to "answer your question"...... There is no need to teach a precise way that life comes from order not chance, as the evidence is obvious. Chance random thinking of Darwinism doesn't teach precision, it teaches a speculative unfalsifiable concept lacking in in empirical evidence to elevate it beyond a speculative theory. As fare as vacuousness goes, among the vacuous representations I have seen is your claims that I said "instantaneous" in reference to the manifestation of the Universe, or that "a Hindu concept of age of the Universe " should be taught to children in schools.
"Aging is for that which is born, which will die.....age is for the changing, not the changeless....." Atomic energy has a lifespan. It has "half lives" and stuff. Are you suggesting, it isnt born-or that its not alive?
Atomic energy has a lifespan. It has "half lives" and stuff. Lifespan? Are you suggesting that the "lifespan" of radioactive waste is the same as the life of a biological organism? Are you suggesting, it isnt born-or that its not alive? Yes, I suggest that radioactive waste is not "alive" and that radioactive waste has no consciousness. What is Life? With Mind and Matter and Autobiographica Sketches By Erwin Schrodinger Nobel laureate Erwin Schrödinger's What is Life? is one of the great science classics of the twentieth century. The book is a distinguished physicist's exploration of the question which lies at the heart of biology. It was written for the layman, but proved one of the spurs to the birth of molecular biology and the subsequent discovery of the structure of DNA. Philosopher Karl Popper hailed it as a "beautiful and important book by a great man to whom I owe a personal debt for many exciting discussions." What is Life appears here together with Mind and Matter, an essay that investigates a relationship which has eluded and puzzled philosophers since the earliest times. Schrodinger asks what place consciousness occupies in the evolution of life, and what part the state of development of the human mind plays in moral questions. Brought together with these two classics are Schrödinger's autobiographical sketches, published and translated here for the first time. They offer a fascinating fragmentary account of his life which helps provide a background to his scientific writings. Reviews "...delightful...Schrödinger writes in a naturally relaxed and pleasant tone that leads us through the difficulties of his subject...It is well worth the trouble. For the serious student of origin-of-life theories, it is the obvious place to start." The Boston Book Review Contents Preface 1. The classical physicist's approach to the subject 2. The hereditary mechanism 3. Mutations 4. The quantum-mechanical evidence 5. Delbruck's model discussed and tested 6. Order, disorder and entropy 7. Is life based on the laws of physics? Epilogue: on determinism and free will Mind and Matter 1. The physical basis of consciousness 2. The future of understanding 3. The principle of objectivation 4. The arithmetical paradox: the oneness of mind 5. Science and religion 6. The mystery of the sensual qualities Autobiographical sketches (translated from the German by Schrodinger's granddaughter Verena).
Well, amoeba are alive . Do they have consciousness? You need a consciousness, to be alive? Is that what your implying?It seems to be.
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God Henry F. Schaefer III Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991. This is the second part of a two-part lecture given by Dr. Schaefer. Part 1 of this lecture appeared in The Real Issue, November/December, 1994. We shall begin with the philosophical aspects of A Brief History of Time, which really explains why it has sold so many copies. Stephen Hawking has stated, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief." When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions. A Brief History of Time makes wonderfully ambiguous statements such as, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory [here he's talking about the unification of quantum mechanics with an understanding of gravity], it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"(p. 174). I love that statement. Hawking pokes fun at Albert Einstein for not believing in quantum mechanics. When asked why he didn't believe in quantum mechanics, Einstein would say things like, "Well, God doesn't play dice with human beings"(p. 56). Hawking's response is that God not only plays with dice, He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen. The first time I read A Brief History of Time, for the first 122 pages I thought, "This is a great book; Hawking is building a splendid case for creation by an intelligent being." But then everything changes and this magnificent cosmological epic becomes adulterated by poor philosophy and theology. For example, he writes, "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it" (p. 122). The grounds on which Hawking claims "it appears" are unstated and what happens is that a straw God is set up that is certainly not the God of Biblical history. What follows is a curious mixture of deism and the ubiquitous God of the gaps. Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism. One of the most famous and quoted statements in the book is, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator [the cosmological argument]. But if the universe is really completely self- contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"(pp. 140- 1). At the end of the book he states, "However, if we do discover a complete theory. . . then we would know the mind of God"(p. 175). http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html
"Yes, I suggest that radioactive waste is not "alive" and that radioactive waste has no consciousness." I see, oky dokey. All living things contain radioactivity, as measured by carbon-14 dating and the like. So, does that make all living things radioactive waste-with no consciousness? I didnt say anything about "waste", i think i mentioned energy.
I believe amoeba are alive, and that they have consciousness, yes.... The human body, when the "owner" of that body is declared dead, has organisms in it that are still alive, but I do not know of too many that suggest a dead body is "alive." Is a lightbulb that works alive, because when it no longer works it is declared "dead?"
A human body has "activity" within it even when the human being is declared dead.... on an atomic level there is activity, and the level of micro organisms that live inside the body who are not dead. However, the human being once declared dead by a physician is considered quite dead....by both the atheist and the theist.
I may be throwing a wrench in here. But when a doctor declares somebody dead. All I see is the doctor is declaring death as a legal pronouncement according to his/her understanding of medical science. His/her declaration is not necesarily reality or even correct.
ART/Zx/FoFumFee/JaneDoe/Etc/Etc. >Anyone who claims that they have won a "debate" or >argument, in my opinion in a setting and forum like this >is nothing but a public masturbator of sorts, who needs >very much to stroke themselves in public for all to see. >Self declaration of victory is not much difference than >pulling ones own pud, it becomes a necessity when >non one else will do the job..... ROFLAO!!!!! It's nice to see you describe youself in "your opinion". Shall I start posting links to your many posts where you declare yourself the pud pulling winner of various debates? Just to refresh your memory, it's generally just after you've been cornered and you then decide to declare your debate foe the loser. Go ahead -- pull some more. JB