|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 01/06/2011 : 13:26:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
And the total way those coins can be arranged is not 16 as this just calculates the way that the heads and tails can be arranged. The TOTAL for 4 coins is 4!, or 24.
That's the ONLY way and the correct way to calculate the entropy of ANY system as I calculated. It doesn't matter if it is coins, genes, atoms or traffic congestion. |
In a nucleotide substitution, the most basic mutation, it's not one nucleotide in the genome trading place with another nucleotide in the same genome (that never happens).
It's one nucleotide in the genome being exchanged with a random other nucleotide provided from an open pool of nucleotides.
If the genome only had two kinds of nucleotides, then a string of coins which could flip but not trade places with eachother, would be an accurate analogy: 24 combinations. Not 4!.
Rearranging 4 coins has 4! different combinations, only if you can identify each and every coin. Your problem Jerry, is that you can't track every nucleotide individually, because all Adenines look exactly the same. All Cytosine looks the same. And they always code for the same sequence if they are substituted with another nucleotide of the same sort.
Take 4 coins, two heads and two tails, which you can't tell apart. Now, with your college math, calculate the number of different sequences of heads and tails you can get. Is it 24?
|
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 - 01/06/2011 : 13:28:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I'm also discussing it with a guy named Dave, who doesn't understand a SINGLE term in the formulas I am introducing him to. |
Once again, you're just trying to project your failures on to me.If you did Dave, then you would immediately grasp that the ONLY way to calculate the way something is arranged is to use combinatorials. How many ways can 4 coins be arranged?
Well, I understand there are two possible microstates for each coin, and 4 coins and therefore there are 2^4 possible resting states, or 16.
But the macrostate, or the configurational entropy of the way the coins ACTUALLY EXIST AFTER THEY FLIP is another critter and is figured quite differently: configurational entropy is calculated using factorials; or some call them combinatorials:
This is the type of entropy Feynman described for us in Lectures on Physics published in 1963 entitled "Order and entropy" (vol I section 46-5) as "We measure "disorder" by the number of ways that the insides can be arranged, so that from the outside it looks the same. The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy."
And the total way those coins can be arranged is not 16 as this just calculates the way that the heads and tails can be arranged. The TOTAL for 4 coins is 4!, or 24.
That's the ONLY way and the correct way to calculate the entropy of ANY system as I calculated. It doesn't matter if it is coins, genes, atoms or traffic congestion. |
But you've just calculated W as N! in the case of the coins, while for the genome you calculated W as (N1+N2)!/N1!N2!, so you're obviously choosing to calculate W in one way sometimes, and in another way sometimes (and probably in still other ways at other times) and I'm saying that you need to justify your choice for the problem at hand. Where is the peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates that the choice you made is the proper one for the question you're trying to answer?
Note also the lack of the factorial sign in the generalized equation for entropy for systems not in equilibrium (which you posted earlier in this thread). How do you justify your assumption that the genome is in equilibrium, anyway, when clearly some of its microstates are more likely than others? As your own references state, the Boltzmann formula is for systems that are in equilibrium, since it's the simplified case where the probabilities of all the microstates are assumed to be equal.| We are looking at genes going from healthy genes to unhealthy ones, one state to another state--on and off--little different than heads or tails in a coin toss. |
And that's not an appropriate model for genes at all, since some mutations are more harmful than others. They aren't either "healthy" or "unhealthy," but instead a continuum of possibilities exist, so you can't model them as a simple binary choice. Furthermore, since some genes depend upon other genes, they aren't statistically independent choices, either.| So nothing you can do or say is going to change any unbiased reader's mind that all systems are calculated the way I did... |
Systems not in equilibrium are calculated differently. You even posted the equation.| ...and just because you are losing this debate and striking back anyway you can is no legitimate reason to assume that a genetic system is exempt from SLOT and the measurement of SLOT, entropy. |
No, the reason a "genetic system" would be exempt from SLOT is that no "genetic system" is isolated. Natural selection is the process through which genomes collect information from the environment. The exchange is two-way, since every organism coded for and implemented by a "genome system" changes its environment. Thus, "genome systems" must be open, and SLOT doesn't apply. How could you possibly justify isolation, and thus the conclusion that SLOT does apply?
Also:| I can easily justify independence. Mutations are random and this is what we are measuring. No way is one gene dependent on another when it mutates. How do you think that one is? |
If two mutated genes prevent fertilization of the egg, but either mutation is neutral on its own, then the pair together would never have been seen by Eyre-Walker and Keightley in their samples. That's dependence. Even a single mutation which kills organisms very early would not be seen in the samples, thus ensuring that the distribution of mutations is also not uniform. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 17:01:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
So, yes, we have reached an impass, but not because I've run out of ammo. |
You never even had enough ammo to load a peashooter to start off with...
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 17:36:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But you've just calculated W as N! in the case of the coins, while for the genome you calculated W as (N1+N2)!/N1!N2!, so you're obviously choosing to calculate W in one way sometimes, and in another way sometimes (and probably in still other ways at other times) and I'm saying that you need to justify your choice for the problem at hand. Where is the peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates that the choice you made is the proper one for the question you're trying to answer? |
Well sheeze....You seem schooled in math and then you ask the silliest questions. The answer is because this is the way that combinatorials work.
For a single factor, such as the possible states of a series of coins acting as a single system, it is N!. But I did not have this I was calculating TWO states, deleteriously mutated nucleotides verses non-mutated nucleotides and that is as you post: (N1+N2)!/N1!N2!.
Had we been considering 3 entities such as yellow balls, red balls and purple ones, we would divide by N1!N2!N3!, If four entities, N1!N2!N3!N4! are you seeing a consistent correlation here? <:0)
| Note also the lack of the factorial sign in the generalized equation for entropy for systems not in equilibrium (which you posted earlier in this thread). How do you justify your assumption that the genome is in equilibrium, anyway, when clearly some of its microstates are more likely than others? As your own references state, the Boltzmann formula is for systems that are in equilibrium, since it's the simplified case where the probabilities of all the microstates are assumed to be equal. |
LOL, It's going to sound like I'm picking on you and it's not my intention to do so. But you are just SO LOST in this subject.
The genome is not in equilibrium. NOTHING in a living organism is in equilibrium because when an organism comes to perfect equilibrium, it is dead.
You stated (or I assumed) that you read Erwin Schrodinger's book, What is life, that I recommended for you. If you did, you just scanned it. Allow him to bring us up to speed on this subject:
"What is the characteristic feature of life? When is a piece of matter said to be alive? When it goes on 'doing something', moving, exchanging material with its environment, and so forth, and that for a much longer period than we would expect an inanimate piece of matter to 'keep going' under similar circumstances. When a system that is not alive is isolated or placed in a uniform environment, all motion usually comes to a standstill very soon as a result of various kinds of friction; differences of electric or chemical potential are equalized, substances which tend to form a chemical compound do so, temperature becomes uniform by heat conduction. After that the whole system fades away into a dead, inert lump of matter. A permanent state is reached, in which no observable events occur. The physicist calls this the state of thermodynamical equilibrium, or of 'maximum entropy'."
http://dieoff.org/page150.htm
And when we think about it, any system at perfect equilibrium isn't doing anything, the system is dead.
| And that's not an appropriate model for genes at all, since some mutations are more harmful than others. They aren't either "healthy" or "unhealthy," but instead a continuum of possibilities exist, so you can't model them as a simple binary choice. Furthermore, since some genes depend upon other genes, they aren't statistically independent choices, either. |
Yeah, yeah I know. Genes don't mutate via random mutation, they are all interdependent on one another to mutate. You are revolutionizing science with these broad, unsubstantiated claims.
But it is irrelevant HOW harmful a mutation one happens to be. That is another subject. Is it beneficial or neutral to the organism? No? Then it is harmful and we can quite easily feel confident about placing it in the category of harmful mutations. Just as Claude Shannon noted a bit is two choices; total opposites--on or off--harmful mutation or non-harmful one, it all correlates.
| Systems not in equilibrium are calculated differently. You even posted the equation. |
Remind me of that. This is a long thread and I am not sure what you are referring to.
| No, the reason a "genetic system" would be exempt from SLOT is that no "genetic system" is isolated. Natural selection is the process through which genomes collect information from the environment. The exchange is two-way, since every organism coded for and implemented by a "genome system" changes its environment. Thus, "genome systems" must be open, and SLOT doesn't apply. How could you possibly justify isolation, and thus the conclusion that SLOT does apply. |
What the heck are you talking about now? We've argued open system thermodynamics for a 100 freaking posts. Are you now saying there is no such thing? LMAO, I have no idea why I waste my time with you, Dave.
So Schrodinger wrote that entire book about entropy in the human body and since the human body is in an open system none of it apples? BAHAHAhahahahahah.
If two mutated genes prevent fertilization of the egg, but either mutation is neutral on its own, then the pair together would never have been seen by Eyre-Walker and Keightley in their samples. That's dependence. Even a single mutation which kills organisms very early would not be seen in the samples, thus ensuring that the distribution of mutations is also not uniform.
|
Yeah, and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's butt when it hops. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 18:49:29 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah, and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's butt when it hops. |
Reference, please..... 
As can be seen by the skeleton, a frog doesn't land on it's butt. It uses it's hind legs as shock absorbers in a way that it actually sits with no ass-impact at all.
 |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 19:04:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
| Yeah, and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's butt when it hops. |
Reference, please.....
As can be seen by the skeleton, a frog doesn't land on it's butt. It uses it's hind legs as shock absorbers in a way that it actually sits with no ass-impact at all.
|
HAHAHAHa kay, ya got me on that one, Filthy. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 19:46:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Well sheeze....You seem schooled in math and then you ask the silliest questions. The answer is because this is the way that combinatorials work.
For a single factor, such as the possible states of a series of coins acting as a single system, it is N!. But I did not have this I was calculating TWO states, deleteriously mutated nucleotides verses non-mutated nucleotides and that is as you post: (N1+N2)!/N1!N2!.
Had we been considering 3 entities such as yellow balls, red balls and purple ones, we would divide by N1!N2!N3!, If four entities, N1!N2!N3!N4! are you seeing a consistent correlation here? <:0) |
So, no citations then. Gotcha.LOL, It's going to sound like I'm picking on you and it's not my intention to do so. But you are just SO LOST in this subject.
The genome is not in equilibrium. NOTHING in a living organism is in equilibrium because when an organism comes to perfect equilibrium, it is dead. |
Great, then we're in agreement that Boltzmann's formula is inappropriate, since it assumes equilibrium.| Yeah, yeah I know. Genes don't mutate via random mutation, they are all interdependent on one another to mutate. You are revolutionizing science with these broad, unsubstantiated claims. |
I never made any such silly claims. What you "know" is completely wrong.| But it is irrelevant HOW harmful a mutation one happens to be. That is another subject. Is it beneficial or neutral to the organism? No? Then it is harmful and we can quite easily feel confident about placing it in the category of harmful mutations. Just as Claude Shannon noted a bit is two choices; total opposites--on or off--harmful mutation or non-harmful one, it all correlates. |
But there's no scientific justification for creating only two categories when trying to measure "genetic entropy." That's like saying one can measure the entropy of traffic by splitting cars into two groups, those going above two MPH, and everyone else. The metric you're using is actually continuous, not binary, so choosing to force all the possibilities into one of two categories is completely arbitrary, just like the Myers-Briggs Personality test pigeonholing everyone into one of 16 personality types is utter nonsense.| Systems not in equilibrium are calculated differently. You even posted the equation. |
Remind me of that. This is a long thread and I am not sure what you are referring to. |
Oh, wait. My mistake. I posted it, not you. I was obviously giving you way too much credit, there. Sorry for overestimating you.| No, the reason a "genetic system" would be exempt from SLOT is that no "genetic system" is isolated. Natural selection is the process through which genomes collect information from the environment. The exchange is two-way, since every organism coded for and implemented by a "genome system" changes its environment. Thus, "genome systems" must be open, and SLOT doesn't apply. How could you possibly justify isolation, and thus the conclusion that SLOT does apply. |
What the heck are you talking about now? |
You asked me why SLOT doesn't apply to genomes. I answered you.| We've argued open system thermodynamics for a 100 freaking posts. Are you now saying there is no such thing? |
No, I'm just saying that SLOT says that entropy tends to increase in isolated systems. SLOT says nothing about entropy trends in open systems.| LMAO, I have no idea why I waste my time with you, Dave. |
If you feel you're wasting your time, you're free to not reply to me. Nobody is forcing you.| So Schrodinger wrote that entire book about entropy in the human body and since the human body is in an open system none of it apples? |
Of course not. Open systems still have entropy, there's just no law that says that the entropy tends to increase in an open system.Indeed, your straw men are pretty funny, but only because they make you look foolish.If two mutated genes prevent fertilization of the egg, but either mutation is neutral on its own, then the pair together would never have been seen by Eyre-Walker and Keightley in their samples. That's dependence. Even a single mutation which kills organisms very early would not be seen in the samples, thus ensuring that the distribution of mutations is also not uniform.
|
Yeah, and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's butt when it hops. |
I'll consider that an admission that you can't rebut my argument. Thanks. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 20:13:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
Well sheeze....You seem schooled in math and then you ask the silliest questions. The answer is because this is the way that combinatorials work.
For a single factor, such as the possible states of a series of coins acting as a single system, it is N!. But I did not have this I was calculating TWO states, deleteriously mutated nucleotides verses non-mutated nucleotides and that is as you post: (N1+N2)!/N1!N2!.
Had we been considering 3 entities such as yellow balls, red balls and purple ones, we would divide by N1!N2!N3!, If four entities, N1!N2!N3!N4! are you seeing a consistent correlation here? <:0) |
So, no citations then. Gotcha.LOL, It's going to sound like I'm picking on you and it's not my intention to do so. But you are just SO LOST in this subject.
The genome is not in equilibrium. NOTHING in a living organism is in equilibrium because when an organism comes to perfect equilibrium, it is dead. |
Great, then we're in agreement that Boltzmann's formula is inappropriate, since it assumes equilibrium.| Yeah, yeah I know. Genes don't mutate via random mutation, they are all interdependent on one another to mutate. You are revolutionizing science with these broad, unsubstantiated claims. |
I never made any such silly claims. What you "know" is completely wrong.| But it is irrelevant HOW harmful a mutation one happens to be. That is another subject. Is it beneficial or neutral to the organism? No? Then it is harmful and we can quite easily feel confident about placing it in the category of harmful mutations. Just as Claude Shannon noted a bit is two choices; total opposites--on or off--harmful mutation or non-harmful one, it all correlates. |
But there's no scientific justification for creating only two categories when trying to measure "genetic entropy." That's like saying one can measure the entropy of traffic by splitting cars into two groups, those going above two MPH, and everyone else. The metric you're using is actually continuous, not binary, so choosing to force all the possibilities into one of two categories is completely arbitrary, just like the Myers-Briggs Personality test pigeonholing everyone into one of 16 personality types is utter nonsense.| Systems not in equilibrium are calculated differently. You even posted the equation. |
Remind me of that. This is a long thread and I am not sure what you are referring to. |
Oh, wait. My mistake. I posted it, not you. I was obviously giving you way too much credit, there. Sorry for overestimating you.| No, the reason a "genetic system" would be exempt from SLOT is that no "genetic system" is isolated. Natural selection is the process through which genomes collect information from the environment. The exchange is two-way, since every organism coded for and implemented by a "genome system" changes its environment. Thus, "genome systems" must be open, and SLOT doesn't apply. How could you possibly justify isolation, and thus the conclusion that SLOT does apply. |
What the heck are you talking about now? |
You asked me why SLOT doesn't apply to genomes. I answered you.| We've argued open system thermodynamics for a 100 freaking posts. Are you now saying there is no such thing? |
No, I'm just saying that SLOT says that entropy tends to increase in isolated systems. SLOT says nothing about entropy trends in open systems.| LMAO, I have no idea why I waste my time with you, Dave. |
If you feel you're wasting your time, you're free to not reply to me. Nobody is forcing you.| So Schrodinger wrote that entire book about entropy in the human body and since the human body is in an open system none of it apples? |
Of course not. Open systems still have entropy, there's just no law that says that the entropy tends to increase in an open system.Indeed, your straw men are pretty funny, but only because they make you look foolish.If two mutated genes prevent fertilization of the egg, but either mutation is neutral on its own, then the pair together would never have been seen by Eyre-Walker and Keightley in their samples. That's dependence. Even a single mutation which kills organisms very early would not be seen in the samples, thus ensuring that the distribution of mutations is also not uniform.
|
Yeah, and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's butt when it hops. |
I'll consider that an admission that you can't rebut my argument. Thanks.
|
Yawn, you said not one damned thing in that entire post. In fact, you are simply lost in the math of thermodynamics although most people learn this simple stuff in high school.
You don't understand the term equilibrium in thermodynamics and that a living organism if at equilibrium would be freaking dead, LMAO.
What is it you want from me, is making yourself look like an idiot entertainment to you? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 21:08:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Yawn, you said not one damned thing in that entire post. |
I'll take that as an admission that you are unable to rebut any of the points I made.| In fact, you are simply lost in the math of thermodynamics although most people learn this simple stuff in high school. |
Once again, you are projecting.| You don't understand the term equilibrium in thermodynamics and that a living organism if at equilibrium would be freaking dead, LMAO. |
I agree with you about equilibrium. You have just proven that Boltzmann's formula should not be applied to living organisms, since Boltzmann's formula is only applicable to systems in equilibrium. Or, maybe you are saying that your "genetic entropy" only applies to dead creatures, about which you would get no argument from me. Take your pick.| What is it you want from me... |
You have nothing that I would want. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 22:33:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I can easily justify independence. Mutations are random and this is what we are measuring. |
You were supposedly measuring the entropy in 41,471 nucleotides, not mutations.
| No way is one gene dependent on another when it mutates. How do you think that one is? |
The process of selection do make them dependent. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
moe1
New Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2013 : 22:27:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by podcat
So basically the ID argument is not
| Certain things in nature are created perfectly by something which cannot be proven to exist. |
but
| Certain things in nature are created imperfectly by something which cannot be proven to exist. |
|
They don't even say that. It's more like "Certain things in nature were created by something intelligent.". Perfection/imperfection alledgedly has nothing to do with it. That doesn't stop some major ID supporters from claiming that there shouldn't be things like junk DNA, however. Consistency isn't exactly these people's strongest point.
|
I find this comment to be completely false. Starting with you assumption about junk DNA. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of the DNA that was thought to be “junk” has been found to have real function. If Darwinian biology were correct, the idea of junk DNA would cause some significant problems as well. Cells should not wait energy making useless DNA if they do then it would appear that natural selection is not doing its part. Jonathan Wells says, “RNA transcribed from non-protein coding DNA play significant roles in controlling whether, where, and to what extent the protein coding regions are transcribed.” In other words we know most DNA is useful and it seems reasonable to assume we will discover reasons for the rest of the unknown DNA. |
|
|
|
moe1
New Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2013 : 22:43:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
No the ID argument is as stated by Kil, that some things we see in biology are looks to the layman like it's irreducibly complex, that is to say...
|
There, I fixed an error in your text.
Edited to add:
Several examples have been proposed as evidence of Irreducible Complexity. Like the inner ear, bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, and such. All of them have been shot down because after a closer examination, evidence show that they weren't irreducibly complex.
So far, IC has proven to be a number of exercises in Argument from Ignorance: I don't know how the flagellum could have evolved, therefore it has been designed.
|
|
|
|
|
moe1
New Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2013 : 22:58:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Hawks
(And yes, I know that ID is a rather blatant attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom.)
|
I feel you understate the case somewhat. Maybe through either an inability or unwillingness to see it. ID is more than a blatant attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom, it is a scientific and intellectually deceitful attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom AND many many theists are unaware that they are being daily lied to about it's validity. Continuously everyday. In spite of those responsible being exposed and corrected, they do not cease their deception but continue to do so. They know there lying about the evidence and continue to do so because that's their way of deceiving and stealing billions, collectively from the very people they are deceiving. SS
|
ID makes no religious claims. It is simply the theory that when one examines complex biological system one can observe that intelligence was involved in the process of creating these systems. Biological studies like evolutionary biology and intelligent design cannot do an adequate job talking about any kind of god this subject is outside of their fields. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2013 : 02:40:15 [Permalink]
|
| good points moe1, welcome to the forum. |
 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2013 : 05:38:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moe1
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Hawks
(And yes, I know that ID is a rather blatant attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom.)
|
I feel you understate the case somewhat. Maybe through either an inability or unwillingness to see it. ID is more than a blatant attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom, it is a scientific and intellectually deceitful attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom AND many many theists are unaware that they are being daily lied to about it's validity. Continuously everyday. In spite of those responsible being exposed and corrected, they do not cease their deception but continue to do so. They know there lying about the evidence and continue to do so because that's their way of deceiving and stealing billions, collectively from the very people they are deceiving. SS
|
ID makes no religious claims. It is simply the theory that when one examines complex biological system one can observe that intelligence was involved in the process of creating these systems. Biological studies like evolutionary biology and intelligent design cannot do an adequate job talking about any kind of god this subject is outside of their fields.
|
Yes, Id is not religious... and Hooter's is an EOE. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 04/19/2013 05:38:45 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
