<p>How can you say evolution is goal-directed? I thought Darwin stressed survival of the fittest, which I don't think is really goal directed. Recent evolutionists have brought up new theories about symbiosis in evolution (the bacteria in our stomach). The only goal that it involees is survival, which isn't so much of a goal as a drive that every organism has.</p>
<p>were you talking to me, meestasi? if so, i never said evolution was goal-directed. rather the opposite. read carefully.</p>
<p>What's the Riemann hypothesis?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does that mean I can start believing in the Force? :D
[/quote]
Of course. Whyever not? :)
[quote]
speaking of star wars, is it true that Scientologists believe that they're a race of aliens called "thetans" reincarnated onto earth?
[/quote]
Yep, take a look here- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetans%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetans</a> Of course you're not supposed to know most of this, as per Scientology you're supposed to take a bunch of courses that cost money first to get to the point where you know the story. (Though if you get that far you're supposed to get superpowers... hmmm, tempting!)
To the poster who asked about the morality question, that was back in about the land of page 47.</p>
<p>mruncleramos:
probability may be meaningless, but it would take a great deal of faith to believe in something that has a 1/10^60 chance of coming true (and that is under ideal chemical reaction circumstances). If you want to wager on the accidentally-made Boeing 747, be my guest :), but common sense/basic reasoning would probably tell you this is not a smart idea, and isn't common sense what science is about, for apparently it cannot accept anything that is contrary. (note: I am not a science basher).</p>
<p>Okay, with statistics aside, how about if you were taking a walk on a deserted beach, and all of a sudden you see "I Love You" carved in the sand, with a big heart and arrow around it? Would that be the product of one freak of a wave, or simply the imprints of an intelligent human? Similarly, our DNA (without going into the fact that the synthesis of DNA and RNA has never been achieved except under highly implausible circumstances without any resemblance to early earth) is much much more than a blob of molecules stuck together: it conveys information in a four-lettered chemical alphabet that gives instructions to all the functions of the cell.</p>
<p>Another example, taken from Carl Sagan's own work "Contact": suppose you have sent a radiotelescope into space, and all day the signals buzzed with static; so we can assume that there's no intelligence out there. Suddenly one day the scientists in the story begin to receive a sequence of prime numbers - actual transmission with INFORMATION - and they naturally concluded there is an intelligent cause in it. Since Sagan himself said that one message from outer space alone would be evidence that there's intelligence out there, then wouldn't it make sense that that all the information in the DNA of animals and plants are evidence of intelligent communication from an intelligent cause?</p>
<p>I will acknowledge your point on probability tomorrow: I am too tired today. On the point that DNA and RNA synthesis has never been achieved in the context that you mention. I agree. We do not know how that works, but you have to be pretty darn confident to claim that we will never come up with a reasonable explanation for that phenomenon. It was unthinkable that we would be able to make it to the moon the way that we made it 100 years ago. New discoveries are made. Unless there is "proof" that something like that cannot occur under any condition, then it would be naive to make that assertion. HIstorically, there has a been a progression of attributing less and less things to a creator due to discoveries made in science. Perhaps this is going to be a next step, but you can't claim that it isn't until you have a rigorous proof.
Perhaps I have repeated myself, but I am really tired.</p>
<p>you talk of probability, and say 1/10^60 as a number, but over how much time are you talking? if you throw these chemicals together and zap them with electricity, there may be a 1/10^60 chance of them forming, but these same circumstances may have occured millions of times, zapped by millions of lightningbolts over a hundred million years before life FINALLY formed and stuck, to evolve further from there. suddenly 1/10^60 isn't quite so unlikely anymore.</p>
<p>There's a lot of things that happen commonly that use just the right conditions. Tornadoes should be pretty rare because they need just the right condition yet they happen all of the time. I don't think that you can look at a system and compare it like a game of Piggly Wiggly like the pigs both happening to land on their feet -- on top of each other. But hey guess what? With all of those proteins there are many that AREN'T perfectly assembled and that's why there are many different types of disabilities and illinesses.</p>
<p>In fact once we get further into the proteinome project I think we will discover that people with depression have a working protein that is less effective than normal people but there are many different derivations causing cases to vary from mild to delusional. People are affected at different rates. Not everybody needs the same amount of vitamins. Some need excessively large doses. Why is that? If they are working shouldn't their proteins be as infalliable as anyone else's? Sorry but intelligent design doesn't work because life isn't perfect. If God or some higher power had designed us then why would he do it incorrectly adding needless things, making things so complicated, stuff can so easily go wrong.</p>
<p>You know why? Because He didn't create us. We evolved and came to believe in Him. He created a vastly complex system and watched it grow. That's what I would rather believe than some <em>snap</em> "well-there-ya-are" type theory because I find it insulting to a power higher that He couldn't even do it right. But really according to you guys I guess He does mess up and had to wipe us off the Earth before. Right? right? More than once. Guess he'll do it again eventually.</p>
<p>wow, from god then cells then star wars then god again... what a hot topic this thread became.</p>
<p>I was thinking the same thing then I just posted anyways. I get hooked on these damn threads.</p>
<p>Atheists.....hahaha</p>
<p>Sevendust,</p>
<p>You still haven't admitted that you were wrong about Korea and Japan.</p>
<p>Japanes is mostly atheist and so is Korea. I did make the mistake if assuming Japan is a Communist nation.</p>
<p>Japan IS NOT atheist, nor is Korea. Where are you getting these silly ideas from?</p>
<p>The Japanese are mostly Shinto/Buddhists <a href="well%20over%2080%">url=http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html</a>. Over</a> half of Korea is religious.</p>
<p>Besides, if the Japanese are SOOOO evil since they don't believe in original sin, why is crime so low here? Why do I feel safer in Japan with these godless heathens/polytheists than I do in Christian America?</p>
<p>I'd like an argument and not just silly assumptions like "Japan is a nation of godless commies."</p>
<p>Do Japan and Korea have official religions?</p>
<p>No, neither nation has an official religion. Why?</p>
<p>65% of the Japanese people are atheists.</p>
<p>30-52% of SOUTH Koreans atheists. The majority of North Koreans are atheists as well.</p>
<p>Okay. You still haven't explained why that makes either nation bad. Last time I checked, Japan was the second largest economy, had the safest large cities, and wasn't exactly a nation of evil monsters.</p>
<p>Korea is a pretty nice place, too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
murders remain rare in Japan, both by international and historical standards.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oops for you! ;)</p>
<p>By the way, nice deletion of your post after you realized that the article supported what I had to say. Way to back out.</p>