So explain how this proves that Star Wars is relevant and that good and evil exist independently of human thought?Without illnesses there are no need for doctors. Without the British invasion there is no Gandhi. Without slavery in the United States there is no Martin Luther King Jr. Without ignorance there is no need for scientists. Without theists there is no need for atheists. This is the balance of the world.
But truth, Hajjaj was convinced, held many layers.
Naked mole rats, who live in awful cramped conditions not shared by our ancestors and whose cells reliably commit suicide when overcrowded:
Random tribe in Ecuador, full of seemingly cancer-proof but rather short humans with a whole different kind of immunity:
There was also some random (normal height) guy who happened to have a simple and elegant way to make the immune system recognize and destroy cancer before it got a chance in his blood and that should have ended it, but the guy was a selfish prick and sued to stop the research because he wasn't getting any money from it. Not sure there's a link for that one anywhere on the internet.
Evolution is lazy. If a problem doesn't kill you very often, it doesn't fix it. Evolution could have fixed a lot of things that sometimes kill you in old age, but it didn't. Hunter-gatherers generally do not live long enough to die of Alzheimer's. We're strong and fast and reasonably healthy until about 35-40, and after that we're off-warranty and everything starts wearing out at once.
The more you complain, the less I care about your problems.
"The laws of science are falsifiable. They are responsible for creation. Therefore design can be falsifiable. Simple logic." ~ truthreality
It is not me that makes it wrong. You're doing that fine on your own. Is each premise in your proposition falsifiable? And the form of your proposition's construction, is it such that true premises directly infer the conclusion? You've major problems there.
Then give us an example of an undesigned anything then. This is NOT a waste of time if you're trying to distinguish nonsensical propositions from true ones. Science demands tests to see if your premises are true. That is done by crafting tests such that the premise can be falsified. If you can't, then your premise is not necessarily false, but it certainly is not true and is tossed in the pile with the rest of the bullshit that has not even the possibility of being proved false.Contemplating on what an undesigned universe would look like is a waste of time.
Obviously the sun goes round the earth. Do you hear your LOGIC? That's not logic. The method of arriving at truth in this instance is by declaration. I declare it will rain tomorrow and by gosh I'm not wrong all the time, but I'm not right all the time either. But the rain tomorrow declaration is apt to be more true than your, "...everything in this universe is by design." No way can your statement be falsified, but the truth about it raining tomorrow is easily verified or invalidated by our senses. that is just how lame your logic is.Obviously everything in this universe is by design.
If your statement is so obvious, it should be equally obvious when the universe is NOT designed. Else how do you prove that you are even talking about anything real? You're not. There is no logic in your proposition only the illusion of your understanding.
To what do you attribute your great understanding of propositional logic and the craft of constructing WFFs (Well Formed Formula)? A designer? In what state of inebriation was this designer when he gave you a passing grade in logic?So many variables have to be intact and cooperative in order for this universe to exist as it is. Such design does not come about randomly. If you do not want to see the universe as designed that's fine. Such a personal opinion that stems from dogma but don't say there is no evidence for design in this universe because that is clearly false.
You give this debate the flavor of a competitive struggle between whether Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter is the universe you'd live in and choosing one, accuse the opponent of being dogmatic.
Come the day that I see ID the most productive way of seeing the universe that satisfies scientific methods of demanding a theory capable of being falsified and that ID escapes being falsified, then I'll go to the plate and help in your defense of it. But as it stands now, your creation can't even be tested since there is nothing in your designed universe capable of showing any part, subgroup, or whole that is not designed. Just what have you accomplished by seeing designed delusion? What's the advantage for me in believing ID?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
I’ll grant that I use a colloquial use of the term. Maybe because you said this:
After all, I have to bring the level of discourse down to your level or you won’t understand a thing that’s being said.Quote by: truthreality
From your source:Quote by: truthreality
Come on... I know you read that, because you quoted the sentence right before it.He does rightly point out, however, that natural selection doesn't care what happens to us when we're old. It favors only for those genes that affect our ability to reproduce.
Cancer cells generally have to have a number of mutations before becoming cancerous. Mutations that up regulate or down regulate various genes (and thus proteins) responsible for cellular growth and signalling, as well as down regulating pro-apoptotic cellular processes.
In other words, one of those mutations - like that in hereditary breast cancers (http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/factors/genetics.jsp) - is not sufficient to cause cancer. It raises the risk factor for cancer, essentially by meaning that you need one less mutation to get cancer, but otherwise does not confer a survival or reproductive disadvantage. Hence, there's no significant selective pressure against such mutations (much like there's not significant selective pressure for other hereditary factors that tend to affect people in old age).
So, mutations to oncogenes can be passed on.
But mutations to oncogenes are not cancer. Cancer is a disease involving unregulated cell growth. Cancer serves no evolutionary purpose. Again, you could have correctly noted that mutations serve an evolutionary purpose. Cancer does not.
And I know you're capable of admitting that you're wrong. Well, kinda...
Quote by: truthreality, Post #294
Pro scientia et humanitate.
P.S. I am quite OK in admitting I am wrong. I was wrong about the probability calculations. You on the other hand have an issue doing so.
truth....are you really trying to argue the point that the total amount of entropy in the universe is constantly increasing?
But truth, Hajjaj was convinced, held many layers.
If I take what you just said literally, then of course I’m right. Whether or not an ice cube is locally ordered does not disprove that an interstellar cloud of gas is “disordered.” Or more to the point, since a net increase in entropy is always dictated by the second law of thermodynamics, the "order," imposed by ice freezing (that is - water in going from liquid to solid decreases in entropy) is more than compensated for by the attendant increase in entropy in the surroundings.Quote by: truthreality
However, let’s take each quoted statement independently.
So you’d disagree that there’s a continual increase in entropy for the universe as a whole? Well done, sir, you win a Nobel.Actually, it's more that the laws of the universe are what keep the universe moving towards disorder.
Now, I’d even make the argument that star formation is a fundamentally entropy-increasing process. If one considers matter as a series of states – wherein each “state,” is defined by four variables: (1) The number of nucleides in the atomic nucleus; (2) the number of attached electrons belonging to the atom, (3) the phase of the matter in question, and (4) the relative order (in terms of space between atoms/molecules, orientation relative to one another, etc.) – then the process of star formation and fusion is, I would say, unquestionably a process which increases entropy. It increases the number of states available for matter (by fusing hydrogen into helium, etc. etc.); changes the number of attached electrons (although electrons in stars are generally not associated with one specific nuclei – damned heat); doesn’t necessarily affect the phase (in that stars are made of plasma) until after the star dies; and atoms are generally not in any particular ordered conformation or three dimensional arrangement. Contrast that with what you have in an interstellar cloud of hydrogen before the star forms (wherein only one “state,” is freely available) and the formation of a star is, again I would say, entropically favorable.
See, by way of corroboration:
So, my statement that the laws of the universe – including (for example) gravity – move the universe towards greater entropy is absolutely true. Now, was I technically incorrect in defining “entropy,” as “disorder,”? Sure. But again – I used the colloquial definition you used first. If you want to call me on such a tiny technicality, fine – I was wrong. But you were too – and you were first.
I disagreed with your definition of entropy. And I stated that the early universe – shortly after the big bang – was in a lower entropy state than it currently is. How, exactly, is that statement wrong?Except that’s not really true. The early universe was in a lower entropy state than today. All you’re talking about is local order – and more to the point,
defining “order,” as “that which is good for potential life,” rather than by any metric which is meaningful in the context of entropy.
None at all... as soon as I'm actually wrong. Let me know when that happens?Quote by: truthreality
Pro scientia et humanitate.