|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2005 : 20:30:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie, over here
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
Markie, are you suggesting that humans were inevitable due to the original seeding (programming) of the original cell(s)? Or was this programming periodically tweaked?
Yes, inevitable. The protocol is that the beings who seed life in the beginning are not allowed to tweak the programming along the way. It's 'nature' from there on in after life seeding.
So "nature" really and truly is the same thing as "goddidit," in your mind. 'Cause God made the code in order to make humans. Of course, why God isn't "allowed to tweak" stuff as it runs is unstated. Programmers do that kind of thing all the time.quote:
Regarding the programming, imagine certain outcomes of the programming to behave somewhat like great attractors. The path is not set from one attractor to the next, but it gets to another attractor after enough iterations. Between attractors though almost anything goes within reason.
Except that not anything goes, if you examine the record. The "monkey-to-man" transition you speak of (below) involved nothing which wasn't a primate.quote:
So man's evolutionary journey went from seaweed to sponge...
No animal alive today is descended from anything resembling seaweed.quote:
...to fish to frog to pre-reptile to mammal to monkey to man. Those stages are some of the 'attractors', the stepping stones to man, but the programming has enough lattitude that different attractors might have been used to get to man. (Chance would have it that we happened to go through the frog stage.)
While we are descended from amphibians (as are all land-living tetrapods), a frog wasn't it. More importantly, every living primate evolved through the same first however-many steps, so why (under your "theory") has only man successfully made the last transition? The others have had millions of years to encounter the same "triggers," so why haven't they?quote:
The beings who plant life also monitor its evolutionary progress, and although they cannot alter any organism they can alter the immediate environment to facilitate the survival or a particular promising organism if it is in jeopardy. But after the first appearance of a will creature (man) they are not even allowed to do that.
Come on, markie... Where did you find this big book of rules which a "super intelligence" must follow? You do realize that every one of these "rules" is another unevidenced assumption which further destroys your previously attempted argument that your theory rests on the same number of unknowns as evolutionary theory, right?quote:
Seeing that there appear to be a number of programmers here, I just hope that reticence to accept the programming idea is not a petty case of programmer envy. ;)
Not when the program appears to be so crappy, no.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 21:32:18 [Permalink]
|
| I'm out of ammo. I think Markie should have been an attorney in this country, seeing he can argue that relentlessly without any factual evidence on his side. He could have made a fortune getting absurdly wealthy, guilty-as-sin mobsters "off the hook," maybe in New York or Miami. Frightening to think about what he could do with a little "hard evidence" going for him... he might have been a "prosecuter from Hell." |
Ron White |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 03:08:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I still believe he thinks the functionality provided by genes is binary, either it works or it don't, which is an oversimplistic and incorrect view of genetics.
That is typical though, of religious people who are trying to argue against evolution. Or anything else for that matter. Always black-and-white, and not much in between. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 03:46:36 [Permalink]
|
What I don't get is why humans are so important.
Y'know, I think it was Markie (correct me if I'm wrong) who said only humans can think and philosophize about God and therefore, are special. Apparently this is evidence that whatever deity or superintelligent shade of the color blue decided to make us, in the first place.
Now, wild speculation for wild speculation - what proof do you have that animals - let's just consider mammals - don't philosophize about God? And who says a culture and a civilization is that important? Maybe, oh, wolves have no need to philosophize about creator deities because they're absolutely sure, beyond doubt, that exists such creator. Maybe -all- animals simply know it - no need to waste precious cyberspace thinking about it. Maybe they're just so sure, that they have no need to philosophize, just as you don't philosophize on the existence of water.
That would pretty much change the perspective of where humans fit, no? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 10:24:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley Intriguing. Do you believe that the release of this program on Earth was still in beta? Or do you believe that this program was beta tested on some other planet in some other solar system, perhaps in some other galaxy? Judging by the results of the program on this planet I suspect that it was still a beta release. Seems to be full of bugs. Don't you think?
Hey you sound as if you've read what I have. First of all, the beings who plant life work from a more general program and tweak it to meet the specific conditions of our planet. Nothing unusual there. About the beta, it's uncanny that you should say that because some planets are test planets where some new aspects of the life experiment are tried. And ours happened to be one of them, apparently.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 10:43:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. So "nature" really and truly is the same thing as "goddidit," in your mind. 'Cause God made the code in order to make humans. Of course, why God isn't "allowed to tweak" stuff as it runs is unstated. Programmers do that kind of thing all the time.
It's a specific order of being, not God, who isn't allowed to fiddle with the code after life has started. Why, I don't know.
quote:
Except that not anything goes, if you examine the record. The "monkey-to-man" transition you speak of (below) involved nothing which wasn't a primate.
Correct, between two attractors are organisms which are somewhat intermediate.
quote:
So man's evolutionary journey went from seaweed to sponge...quote:
No animal alive today is descended from anything resembling seaweed.
You don't know that as fact. OK, maybe it resembled more pond scum.
quote:
While we are descended from amphibians (as are all land-living tetrapods), a frog wasn't it.
You don't know that as fact.
quote:
More importantly, every living primate evolved through the same first however-many steps, so why (under your "theory") has only man successfully made the last transition? The others have had millions of years to encounter the same "triggers," so why haven't they?
Apparently other evolutionary lines did come close to human, but they didn't quite make it to human because their programming had been compromised enough to lose that full potential.
quote:
Come on, markie... Where did you find this big book of rules which a "super intelligence" must follow? You do realize that every one of these "rules" is another unevidenced assumption which further destroys your previously attempted argument that your theory rests on the same number of unknowns as evolutionary theory, right?
I admit there are lots of unknowns, lots of complications because there are intelligent beings involved. About the rules, I'm essentially repeating what I have heard t'is all.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 10:58:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
What I don't get is why humans are so important.
Y'know, I think it was Markie (correct me if I'm wrong) who said only humans can think and philosophize about God and therefore, are special. Apparently this is evidence that whatever deity or superintelligent shade of the color blue decided to make us, in the first place.
Well in the broad scheme of things, humans are at the lowest end of the spectrum for beings who can comprehend God, so the universe certainly isn't humanocentric if that's what you mean.
quote:
Now, wild speculation for wild speculation - what proof do you have that animals - let's just consider mammals - don't philosophize about God? And who says a culture and a civilization is that important? Maybe, oh, wolves have no need to philosophize about creator deities because they're absolutely sure, beyond doubt, that exists such creator. Maybe -all- animals simply know it - no need to waste precious cyberspace thinking about it. Maybe they're just so sure, that they have no need to philosophize, just as you don't philosophize on the existence of water.
I don't have proof of course that animals can't commune with God as we can. Yeah maybe they're so sure of God on some level they don't experience existential angst like we can. I happen to believe differently, that humans actually have more value than animals precisely because we are in God's image and animals are not. (Not that animals don't have some value of themselves.)
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 11:52:05 [Permalink]
|
DaveW
quote:
While we are descended from amphibians (as are all land-living tetrapods), a frog wasn't it.
Markie
You don't know that as fact.
You're "splitting hairs;" of course we do- the evidence is overwhelming. You're demanding iron-clad, irrefutable, "smoking gun" evidence, for what the "circumstantial" evidence says is pretty obvious. You're demanding a level of absolute, unequivocal certainty which simply isn't possible (or reasonable to demand.) Circumstantial evidence can be just as compelling as a "smoking gun" if it's strong enough- and it is, in this case. I see a lot of such "hair splitting" in your arguments. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 13:45:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
About the rules, I'm essentially repeating what I have heard t'is all.
What are the original sources of your information, then, and how did these sources aquire knowledge of these rules?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 13:47:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by moakley Intriguing. Do you believe that the release of this program on Earth was still in beta? Or do you believe that this program was beta tested on some other planet in some other solar system, perhaps in some other galaxy? Judging by the results of the program on this planet I suspect that it was still a beta release. Seems to be full of bugs. Don't you think?
Hey you sound as if you've read what I have. First of all, the beings who plant life work from a more general program and tweak it to meet the specific conditions of our planet. Nothing unusual there. About the beta, it's uncanny that you should say that because some planets are test planets where some new aspects of the life experiment are tried. And ours happened to be one of them, apparently.
You read this? Can you provide a reference or a link? I was just busting your balls because I think this is the biggest load of shit that I have read in quite some time. Of course I also wonder if you are just doing this for entertainment. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 15:51:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
While we are descended from amphibians (as are all land-living tetrapods), a frog wasn't it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't know that as fact.
I do. Compare the sketetal structures of frogs and salamanders, then decide which best suits those of reptiles and indeed, mammals. The only mystery, if such there be, is the common ancestor of the two; the frogamander, as it were. 
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/29/2005 15:53:20 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 16:54:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I do. Compare the skeletal structures of frogs and salamanders, then decide which best suits those of reptiles and indeed, mammals. The only mystery, if such there be, is the common ancestor of the two; the frogamander, as it were.
And then there is the phylogenic tree of several different genes. One of them is the Cytochrome-C, a protein that is essential for cellular respiration, that can be traced through ancestors back in time.
The common ancestor of most plant life have cytochrome-c that differs ~40% from the common ancestor of mammals (& reptiles) and insects(!).
Each year more and more DNA is decoded, and the focus and resolution of the Tree of Life increase. The picture is becoming more and more clear, and the phylogenic tree of cytochrome-C is just the beginning.
This pic is taken from the book "Our Cosmic Origin" by Prof. Armand Delsemme, and was used in the University course I attended a few years ago.
The rings indicates specific intermediate species defined by the differences and the likeness of Cytochrome-C. The numbers indicate the percentage difference between each node. Through this chart we can read that the difference between humans and turtles is roughly 13%. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 19:38:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
It's a specific order of being, not God, who isn't allowed to fiddle with the code after life has started. Why, I don't know.
Whatever it is, it sure is godlike (talk about splitting hairs). Except for that bit about it not being allowed to fiddle with the code.quote:
Correct, between two attractors are organisms which are somewhat intermediate.
Which is nearly the polar opposite of "almost anything goes." It's only slightly less opposed to "almost anything goes within reason." Make up your mind.quote:
quote:
So man's evolutionary journey went from seaweed to sponge...quote:
No animal alive today is descended from anything resembling seaweed.
You don't know that as fact. OK, maybe it resembled more pond scum.
Yeah, see, even you know "as fact" that animals are not descended from plants.quote:
quote:
While we are descended from amphibians (as are all land-living tetrapods), a frog wasn't it.
You don't know that as fact.
Sure, I do. Amniotic animals are first found between 312 mya and 305 mya. Yet filthy's frogamander doesn't show up until 250 mya, and no "true frog" is on the scene until at least another 37 million years after that.
Unless you wish to argue that common descent is incorrect (with which your non-interfering deity would disagree), then you'll have to agree that amniotic animals (like man) couldn't be the descendants of creatures which didn't yet exist when the first amniotes did. Especially when the groups which were to become the Amniota and Amphibia had already significantly diverged from their forebears (and each other) by 320 mya.quote:
Apparently other evolutionary lines did come close to human, but they didn't quite make it to human because their programming had been compromised enough to lose that full potential.
Either the programming can be "compromised" or it can't. Which is it? Again, make up your mind.quote:
I admit there are lots of unknowns, lots of complications because there are intelligent beings involved.
That fails to address the point, which is that you once implied that the only difference between your theory and evolution was the "speculation" that either "all is mechanism" or not. As we continue to discuss, we find lots more speculation "supporting" your other speculations.quote:
About the rules, I'm essentially repeating what I have heard t'is all.
Well, I'm not sure you heard whatever it was you heard correctly. I don't think you have a good grasp on what you're trying to argue. Seems to me that what should be "inevitable" under your scheme is the ability to contemplate the godhead, in which case humanity is unnecessary (in terms of form and everything else non-spiritual). If so, that humans got to the point of contemplation before chimps or dolphins would be sheer luck. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 19:39:35 [Permalink]
|
Ron - you say the evidence is 'overwhelming' that frogs aren't in our direct line of evolutionary history. What I've read is that fossil evidence from this transitionary period is quite inconclusive.
Filthy, I've seen studies which suggest different things. One is that frogs and salamanders don't have a common amphibian ancestor, but rather came from different fish. Regarding the morphology of salamanders being more suggestive of reptiles, that may be so, but I think it is still far from conclusive, especially seeing that morphology does not always correspond well to phylogenetics. Genetically, are some frogs closer to certain reptiles/mammals than are the closest salamanders? I suspect so but I can't find any studies bearing this out one way or the other.
HH and moakley, the source is a book authored about sixty years ago, purportedly by a variety of higher beings. But it is mostly religious in nature and I really don't want to bring it up in this venue. I just wanted to let you guys know I am not making this stuff up out of thin air (although I do take liberties on occassion. ;)) Hey, Gene Rodenbury (Star Trek) and Herbert (of Dune fame) derived ideas from it. The book has inspired and helped me immensely, although I find problems with parts of it.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 20:13:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
...What I've read...
...I've seen studies....
If these things are mainstream objections to the standard classification of critters, it should take all of five minutes to come up with an online source for these recollections.
Your memory, it should go without saying, is not a good basis for a compelling argument. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 20:27:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie...
HH and moakley, the source is a book authored about sixty years ago, purportedly by a variety of higher beings. But it is mostly religious in nature and I really don't want to bring it up in this venue. I just wanted to let you guys know I am not making this stuff up out of thin air (although I do take liberties on occassion. ;)) Hey, Gene Rodenbury (Star Trek) and Herbert (of Dune fame) derived ideas from it. The book has inspired and helped me immensely, although I find problems with parts of it.
So you have a reference, a single reference, written by "higher beings". You refuse to name it, and you even hold at least parts of it in fairly low regard. You qualify that reference by claiming a couple of fiction authors derived ideas from it. You provide no more than hearsay supporting evidence for any of your outlandish claims. You attempt finding fault with bits and pieces of the commonly accepted theory of evolution and/or what others here are saying, but so far are achieving no success at that because you're just guessing, fabricating, drawing upon your delusion, or using your obviously poorly supported single reference. I'm with moakley, you're either trolling or you're just plain full of shit, or maybe both. There is more than a little supporting evidence of that.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
