The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did
God create everything that exists?

A student bravely replied yes, he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created
evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works
define who we are then God is evil".

The student became quiet before such an answer.

The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students
that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question
professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been
cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to
the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of
heat. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or
transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or
transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence
of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that
temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe
how we feel if we have no heat.

The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does".

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not
exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can
study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break
white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each
color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into
a world of darkness and illuminate it.

How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of
light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to
describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor. "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already
said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's
inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence
everywhere in the world. "These manifestations are nothing else but
evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is
just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the
absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love
that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what
happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.

It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that
comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

------------------
Soterion Studios

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

------------------
Soterion Studios

------------------
All that is gold does not glitter
Not all those who wander are lost

The old that is stong does not wither
Deep roots are not touched by the frost

From the ashes a fire shall be woken
A light from the shadows shall spring

Renewed shall be blade that was broken
And the crownless again shall be King

quote:

---

It said "We have to beware, the mondern Christian scientist is a slick, well trained character. You have to be very careful when debating them."

---

------------------
Soterion Studios

------------------
All that is gold does not glitter
Not all those who wander are lost

The old that is stong does not wither
Deep roots are not touched by the frost

From the ashes a fire shall be woken
A light from the shadows shall spring

Renewed shall be blade that was broken
And the crownless again shall be King

My question about the story is, if evil is the absence of God, where is God absent from? God trumps all!

*response to Ereon*

Is it fair to say that complex things are comprised of smaller, simpler things? Could new combinations of complex things result in successful new combos?

"1n 1953, a University of Chicago graduate student named Stanley Miller working in Harold Urey's lab flipped a switch sending electric current through a chamber containing a combination of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. The experiment yielded organic compounds including amino acids, the building blocks of life, and catapulted a field of study known as exobiology into the headlines."

As far as my noobish self knows, all of the ingredients that dude used can be found in nature... but I could be wrong. They sound simple enough, though.

quote:

---

My question about the story is, if evil is the absence of God, where is God absent from? God trumps all!

---

Evil isn't the physical absence of God, He is omnipresent, nothing can exist without Him. But it is the moral absence of His character. Look at the USA for instance, trying to remove the name of God from everything. An example would be from schools, I really wonder which of the 10 commandments they didn't like. Was it the one about not killing? Selfishness? Adultery? Lying? Prayer was even removed and now look at all of the violence and disorder in our schools.

They are trying to have the same sex marriages become legal. Which will probably open the door to polygamy and God forbid... bestiality. I won't be surprised if someone tries to marry 3 women because 'he loves them all, and you are going against his rights as a person and suppressing what is natural to say that he can't marry them!' Also, don't be surprised if someone tries to marry a dog or goat either. As silly as it sounds, and if things keep heading in the direction that they are, then just watch it happen.

------------------
If I were a drummer I would use a cymbal.
If I were a writer I would use a pencil.
I would use my voice if I were a singer.
No matter who or what we are we must praise.

Also, if you have one religion in the school, why not others? The only two fair options are to have all of them or none, so that everyone is treated equally. However, guidelines like "Don't shoot people" are still good to have, even if they seem like common sense. We don't prayer at our school and it hasn't changed so meh.

As for marriage... if you love someone and want to be with them, I don't get why you would need some kinda legal ceremony. And if some crazy dude wants to marry a goat, and he finds a crazy priest to wed them, he isn't hurting anyone, so I don't give a damn. So yeah, if it isn't hurting anyone, and we're not affected, let's not get upset about it. IMO, our hypothetical crazy dude was probably dropped on his head as a child or something, but at least he's not criminally insane.

My conclusion:
Zero tax dollars wasted + Crazy but harmless dude + Animal spouse = LOL + Meh

the "only two fair options" of having all, or having none, are also both impossible.

About the only way you could have a school that taught no religion would be to have a school in which math was the only subject. Even then, it would be difficult because how math is presented can have philosophical/religious implications.

Simply put, there is almost no one who is not religious. In order to truly be a non religious person, you basicly have to have no opinions on the topics of theology, ethics, law, sociology, biology, history and so on.
Atheists of course hate this argument, and generaly refuse to acknoledge it, but the fact remains that to believe there is no God, is just as much a theological belief, and a religious belief, as to believe there is a God.

It must be understood that when atheists argue for the removal of theistic religion, they are not arguing for no relegion (which is impossible anyway), they are arguing for their religion, which in most cases is secular humanism.

Teaching all religions is realisticly impossible as well, simply from the stand point of logistics. It would take all the school time, all the school resources and still not get the job done. Plus, its impossible to eliminate bias in the teaching process, so some religions would still get favorable presentation over others.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

"Having none" is basically what is going on now in public schools. You can't tell the kids to do prayers and stuff. Save your worship for Church or your own free time. There is a Bible Study group at my school, and that's fine with me because you only go if you want to.

They both sound possible to me. I prefer the second one as it is simpler.

sure you could allow kids to practice, or restrictt he practice.

What I was refering to is the teaching of religion. Which is the real issue because what the public schools teach shapes the minds and hearts of the students.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

I do agree with the student in the story that started this thread, I don't think evil exists either.

you may not believe that evil exists as such, but you deny any absolute moral truth as well, you deny that good exists.

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

------------------
Soterion Studios

quote:

---

Pfft, noobish professor disses God and gets owned.
Oh hey, I'm back, hi all.

---

Welcome back, CheeseStorm.

quote:

---

Is it fair to say that complex things are comprised of smaller, simpler things?

---

That is fair to say, yes.

quote:

---

Could new combinations of complex things result in successful new combos?

---

If the complex things are somehow combined, and are compatible, yes. This is often done by intelligent designers, such as when I create a program . . .

quote:

---

Then I'm thankful my school isn't trying to change my beliefs.

---

I'm thankful of that too. In fact, I haven't heard of a school that actively tries to change the students' beliefs, except maybe some private schools.

I'm also thankful my school doesn't say I can't worship my God.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

..and I do believe in evil and the devil, but the real point of the story was 'did God create evil' and what is the 'nature' of evil. I do not think we will ever really understand the spiritual realms until we get there, but I found the story helpful.

Hypotheticaly consider this (and this is just hypotheticaly, like I said God and his plans are too big for us to understand). In some ways posting this kind of 'theory' is a bad idea and is not something I would normaly do, but I thought it might help here? Too many 'cults' have been formed around 'rubbish' like this Thats why Jesus used 'stories' to illustrate certain aspects of something much bigger that we are incapable of understanding in its entirety. So thats what this is, just a kinda story that 'might' help explain some things - dunno!!

God is eternal because the values he stands for are eternal and 'self maintaining' (or perpetual), which are love, peace, joy, trust, sacrifice etc. God decides to create 'living beings' who can share in HIS life (or 'eternal' goodness). God creates 'time' for these living beings to exist in, and though they may be eternal they have a 'start' but the ability to have no end. However, one of these beings challenges God and his very character - this is the devil (read the Book of Job).

The devil rejects God and is therefore 'evil' because God is not present in him anymore. God 'allows' the challenge to continue, so that a winner can be found - so that God's way can be shown to be the better way. In fact, I believe God's way 'is the only way' because evil is by nature 'self destroying' and therefore not eternal (the complete opposite of God - or perhaps more accuratly, because God is perfect and eternal then anything that is not like God is imperfect and decaying).

The devil and us humans (and perhaps the angels) are tied up in time. God is outside of time. I beleive this is how God can allow evil to exist, but its inside a 'time bubble' which will not last forever (or something like that!). When time ends and judgement day is over, a new 'eternal' heaven and earth will be made and will be free of evil - or more accuratly, everything will have the presence of God within it and is therefore eternal.

Well, thats my theory!! Probably wrong, but I find it 'kinda' helpful to explain 'some' things (but leaves many others unanswered). Ultimatly we must only rely on what is written in the bible and especialy by what Jesus has told us. Jesus spoke in parrables because we would not be able to understand the truth. If we could have understood, I am sure Jesus would have told us.

God Bless,
Rhy

[This message has been edited by Rhyolite (edited April 25, 2005).]

quote:

---

Is it fair to say that complex things are comprised of smaller, simpler things? Could new combinations of complex things result in successful new combos?

---

Information theory researchers are currently investigating the limitations of natural processes. The AVIDA project is an interesting example, though it at this time it utterly fails to simulate realistic conditions. I think the most critical flaws are in how the critical systems are protected from mutations and in how the rewards system is designed, not to mention how it apparently isn't capable of simulating realistic scenarios like an overdose of cosmic radiation. All functions necessary for an organism to replicate and survive are carried out initially by only 15 instructions. The physical machinery to transcribe, translate and perform metabolic processes are not coded genetically and thus not subject to mutational damage. Never mind it cannot simulate metabolism and the lengths DNA purposefully goes out of its way to prevent mutations (I'm fairly certain that aspect is not even simulated in AVIDA). Of course, if the critical systems were NOT protected AVIDA would probably quickly reduce your precious PC into a useless pile of slag. So, yeah, maybe it's a good thing they don't simulate that aspect of nature.

To me AVIDA is very useful in determing the usefulness of self-adaptive evolutionary algorithms when it comes to engineering. In a controlled environment having a computer randomly try out ideas/designs and reject the bad ones would definitely be an asset. After all, I'm certain Edison would have appreciated not having to go through all those various iterations for a lightbulb before discovering a functional design. Interestingly enough, even the designers of AVIDA have admitted that their program reaches an "information gap", where certain features are out of reach without intelligent intervention.

quote:

---

In 1953, a University of Chicago graduate student named Stanley Miller working in Harold Urey's lab flipped a switch sending electric current through a chamber containing a combination of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. The experiment yielded organic compounds including amino acids, the building blocks of life, and catapulted a field of study known as exobiology into the headlines.

---

Heh, Creationists actually use the Urey-Miller experiment as an example of why abiogenesis is impossible. Off the top of my head, there is the chiralty problem which has never been resolved even after 150 years. Even naturalists are skeptical concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the theorized early earth's atmosphere would not have contained predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Urey-Miller experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced. Not to mention that they only observed three out of the 20 amino acids which constitute the basic elements of proteins had been synthesized.

The death nell, at least in my opinion, is that the experiment's resulting product is mostly comprised of tar. Even if life managed to emerge under such conditions it would be killed by the tar. Oddly enough, even most critics fail to notice this fact.

On a related note, have you been paying attention to the Life Detection seminars being given at JPL?

quote:

---

As far as my noobish self knows, all of the ingredients that dude used can be found in nature... but I could be wrong. They sound simple enough, though.

---

Simple? Ever heard of the field of biomimetics? The level of complexity in biology is so great that we struggle simply trying to understand and duplicate these "simple" mechanisms.

Oh, and a while ago you asserted that since supernatural events occur to other people then the miracles I experienced could not be from God. While that is faulty logic, it is true that such events do occur to non-Christians. The New Testament even warns us to expect such events and to be wary of them. Several years ago I read a book titled "Healing Hands" that catalogued various supernatural events that occur to Hindus. Personal testimonies from ex-Witch doctors and Indian missionaries I have spoken to confirm this.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited April 25, 2005).]

Cobra:
OFTEN done by intelligent designers...

"I'm thankful of that too. In fact, I haven't heard of a school that actively tries to change the students' beliefs, except maybe some private schools."
THANK YOU! WOO!

Gump:
Sorry man, dunno about AVIDA.
Sorry man, dunno about the Life Detection seminars being given at JPL.
Sorry man, dunno about the field of biomimetics. "Obviously." What? Who said that?
Bah, no line between living and non-living, we're just machines made of simpler things, some more aware than others, in my opinion AAGH.

Oh about the miracle thing, I didn't mean it was odd that the miracles happen to people of different beliefs, I meant it was odd that they would disagree on which god sent the miracle.

In closing (getting kicked off), let's all build a time machine and go back and see what really happened, also so we can wipe out Gwen Stefani's grandparents.

Families could then choose a private school which mirrors the fundamental religeous values which they hold, and these values could be taught along with everything else.

Because the government is not funding the schools, it would have no control over what is taught in those schools. The only problem would be if the government said since we are giving you this money you must send your kids to these schools with that money. A policy of giving the parrents the right to choose the school for their children would have to be established.

There is an additional advantage in this. Currently parrents who send their kids to private schools pay for their kids to go to the public schools as well, when they pay taxes. If the government money went right to parrents to send their kids to any school of their choosing, then parrents wouldn't be paying twice for their kids education.

I know its kinda out there, but it seems to me to be the only viable solution to the question of having religeon in schools.

The government should get some say on what goes on, though, cause in an Islamic school up here in Canada, some elementary-level Muslim wrote a story about mowing down Jews with an AK-47 and bombs and whatnot... so the teacher gave him an A+ and called him a hero or something.

Otherwise, I never really thought about a bunch of specialized schools, not a bad idea!

quote:

---

Cobra:
OFTEN done by intelligent designers...

---

Don't mistake that for ceding your point. I am merely pointing out that you aren't about to prove anything .

quote:

---

"I'm thankful of that too. In fact, I haven't heard of a school that actively tries to change the students' beliefs, except maybe some private schools."
THANK YOU! WOO!

---

In other words, I don't think they're trying to shove Christianity down anybody's throat, despite all this whining about "seperation of church and state." Thanks.

quote:

---

Bah, no line between living and non-living, we're just machines made of simpler things, some more aware than others, in my opinion AAGH.

---

Actually, yes, there is, and it has been defined:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=life

quote:

---

life Audio pronunciation of "life" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lf)
n. pl. lives (lvz)

1.
1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

---

That's the definition I see in most science books. Life must:
-have metabolism
-grow
-reproduce
-be made up of one of more cells
-respond to stimili

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01490.htm

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited April 28, 2005).]

And yes, I was agreeing with you on the school systems.

And yes, "in my opinion" means "in my opinion". The "AAGH" was supposed to indicate my anticipated frustration with anyone who tried to change my opinion into their own. Lemme clarify (MY OPINION): Everything's made of the same stuff, we can label it if we want but it doesn't change it.

I'm guessing that differences don't exist at all. This would be the simplest level of anything. Strings sound like they'd be pretty simple but if there's closed loops and open strings then there's a difference right there... I hope there is a simpler level, but string theory goes way over my head anyway.

quote:

---

Everything's made of the same stuff, we can label it if we want but it doesn't change it.

---

In other words, you wish to minimize differences so you can safely ignore them. Yes, at the lowest level, we are made of atoms and all that junk, but I fail to see what that has to do with getting rid of differences.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

Acronyms are sweet cause they help us remember stuff and save paper, but I didn't use them, but since you were sarcastic, I shall say only this: tiddly.

------------------
The learned man knows that he is ignorant - Victor Hugo

quote:

---

I'm just saying that complex things are made of simpler things, aaand it's my GUESS that at some level they're all the same basic unit.

---

I'm just asking - what does that has to do with anything?

quote:

---

Acronyms are sweet cause they help us remember stuff and save paper, but I didn't use them, but since you were sarcastic, I shall say only this: tiddly.

---

Do a search wise guy. Oh yes, you did use an acronym.

If not, then "AAGH" doesn't make any sense. It's not an English word!

Tiddly? You mean you're drunk? No wonder you can't even remember what's in your own posts !
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tiddly

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited April 30, 2005).]

K, back to the topic

------------------
If I were a drummer I would use a cymbal.
If I were a writer I would use a pencil.
I would use my voice if I were a singer.
No matter who or what we are we must praise.

quote:

---

In the school year beginning in the fall of 1996, my son [hereafter AW], at that time a Sophomore in High School, attended a course in Oceanography at Orange Coast College. (Being home-schooled, it was to AW’s advantage to take some of his High School classes at the local community college in order to qualify for admission to a University later on.) AW was doing so well in his studies that we thought it would work for him to take this class, even though he was so young. He only took the lecture course, not the lab. We thought he should do that in his Junior year. As it turned-out, he earned the 3rd highest score in a class of about 300 students, which, combined with his young age, attracted the keen interest of Dr. G.

Dr. G is a well known professor of oceanography, having authored a commonly-used text book on the subject. He is always on the lookout for promising young students, hoping to steer them in the direction of a career in the field of Marine Science.

In the summer of 1997, Dr. G invited AW to join the Honors Lab students in a field trip to the Scripps Institute for a “behind the scenes” tour of the research facility there. Because he was a home-schooled student, Dr. G invited my wife NW, and I [hereafter DW] to join them as well, and we did.

The Scripps marine institute in La Jolla, CA is a research facility engaged in the study of Oceanography and marine history. They collect and examine core samples from the ocean floor, as well as a number of other projects. One of their labs, run by Dr. Michael Latz, is involved in the study of bioluminescence. Dr. Latz and Dr. G are good friends, and so Dr. Latz’ lab is a highlight in the ‘grand tour’ of the facility.

Dr. Latz had the lab ready for us, with beakers of glowing plankton, videos of his work on dolphin studies using bioluminescence, and a microscope displays of dinoflagellates.

During the course of his presentation, Dr. G made a point of interrupting to proudly point out to his students that Dr. Latz was working on a new hypothesis regarding the evolution of bioluminescence. It was Dr. Latz’ belief that bioluminescence had evolved as follows: Radiolarians, or some other such single-celled creature, originally did not have the ability to produce light chemically. When such a capacity evolved, it would seem on the face of it, that such a feature would be a detriment to survival, since the individual(s) that had such a feature would draw special attention to themselves by a predator, for example the copepod. It was Dr. Latz’ innovation however to suggest that the bioluminescent glow would also attract the copepod’s predator, the vertebrate fish, which would have an easier time locating copepods because they would be near glowing radiolarians. So, in fact, bioluminescence was a survival trait after all!

After the lecture, Dr. Latz stepped into the hall, and invited anyone with questions to join him out to discuss them with him. I went up to him at a convenient time, and asked him if he could clear-up one confusing point for me. How, I asked, could vertebrate fish provide the solution for the usefulness of bioluminescence, when according to Darwinian theory, it would have taken many millions of years for the vertebrates to show up? His reply was that this was all just speculation anyway!

Another related incident occurred about a year later. That year, AW took Dr. G’s Honor’s Lab. At the completion of that course, Dr. G had an informal meeting with AW, during which Dr. G pressed him on his beliefs. Paraphrasing:
# ‘So, AW, do you enjoy Marine Science?’
# ‘Yes, I do.’
# ‘Do you think that you might be interested in pursuing a career in it?’
# ‘Maybe…. I’m not sure.’
# ‘What do you think about the theory of evolution?’
# ‘I think it is interesting, and something I really need to learn.’
# ‘Yes, but do you believe that it’s true?’
# ‘Not really, not all of it.’
# ‘Well AW, you know, you are going to have to get past those reservations if you want to pursue a career in this field. It just isn’t possible to succeed in Marine Science if you do not accept the theory of evolution.’

---

I have several friends who teach in universities and in public high schools. Show any doubt towards certain beliefs important to naturalistic philoshophy and you'll find yourself in hot water, possibly without a job.

You know, when I was typing up my last post, I thought I should explain how 'AAGH' is an expression of frustration, or shock, etc, but I assumed you'd know that. "When you assume, you make an *** out of u and me."

What did I forget from my own post? Clue me in, my memory's a little hazy... oh wait, I scrolled up and it turns out I didn't forget **** . And no, I've never been drunk, in fact all the liquor I've consumed could fit in a shooter glass.

And Gump, most of the kids at my school are Christians, although it's painful to label them so, as most of them do not act any differently than the other foul-mouthed idiots that plague the hallways. One atheist mentioned evolution and a particularly loud-mouthed slut (oddly enough, president of the Student Leadership Council) filled the classroom with shrill cries of "Asinine! Ridiculous! Idiot!"

I'd wager that I've read more of the Bible than the rest of the so-called Christians in my classes combined. At least you guys know what you're talking about.

Most of my childhood, including a good part of my High School years, I thought that I was a Christian, simply because I had been baptized when I was 9. But after having a real experience with Jesus, I quickly realized that I was lost. I became a Christian when I repented of my sins, and received Jesus Christ into my life. I decided that I would live for Him, meaning that my attitudes at school would change as well. I became a totally new person. Jesus changed my life.

------------------
If I were a drummer I would use a cymbal.
If I were a writer I would use a pencil.
I would use my voice if I were a singer.
No matter who or what we are we must praise.

[This message has been edited by brandon (edited May 01, 2005).]

quote:

---

That's one hilarious smiley you've got there CobraA1, it had me in tears laughing!

---

Shamelessly copied from TheologyWeb . The smilies here are in bad need of an update . . . .
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/

quote:

---

You said I wanted to minimize differences so that I could safely ignore them, I'm just saying I think they don't exist, on a basic level.

---

Depends on how you define "differences" .

quote:

---

You know, when I was typing up my last post, I thought I should explain how 'AAGH' is an expression of frustration, or shock, etc, but I assumed you'd know that.

---

quote:

---

Bah, no line between living and non-living, we're just machines made of simpler things, some more aware than others, in my opinion AAGH.

---

OK, so - what's so frustrating/shocking/whatever about that statement?

Oh, nevernind, I'll just assume you're easily frustrated, I guess. No need to make a big deal out of it. I'll drop the point.

quote:

---

I'd wager that I've read more of the Bible than the rest of the so-called Christians in my classes combined. At least you guys know what you're talking about.

---

Thank you . It's unfortunate, but we do have a problem of having a lot of people who call themselves Christian, but don't care to study what their own beliefs .

------------------
6 "This is what the LORD says --
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.

8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." -- Isaiah 44:6-8, NIV

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited May 02, 2005).]

Ironic how that "AAGH" created in more frustration than it was meant to prevent. Remind me not to use the following noises: BANG, KABOOM, and KAPLOOSH, cause they're secret acronyms from the thirteenth dimension.

I shall speak no more of the "AAGH" topic. We look like fools.

Hmm, how would I define "differences"? That's a good one... if everything is made of some sort of basic unit, then differences would be illusions, cause you could re-arrange the unit into many shapes but it'd still be MADE of the same thing, even if its function (from a human's point of view) was different, like how the shape of a chair makes a good arrangement for sitting, but a cactus does not, even if they come from the same source and are made of the same basic dealy... soooo I'm guessing that differences are illusions, but that's only if my base-unit thing is right, so if I'm wrong, what I think is an illusion is real and what I thought could be real was an illusion.

BTW This is pure speculation, so nobody pull any Hawking on me, unless you can't help it. Cough GUMP cough... I'm rolling with Grade 11 Chemistry under my belt, so please no "polyatomicnucleotide-zappertrigshrumbas have a tendency to develop into quantumanomalywave-patterns which are in total contradiction to... omg. (((Cause I'm a physics/chem noob.)))

In any case, why were we discussing this again? I think we're lost .

------------------
6 "This is what the LORD says --
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.

8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." -- Isaiah 44:6-8, NIV

Another example. When a programmer writes code, he usually doesn't code in machine code...or the chemical laws for a biological equivalent. The programmer writes in a language that is a high level abstraction which contains meaning beyond the information intrinsic to each value. The information in the code must be compiled to be given meaning within the natural processes of the real world.

DNA contains terrabytes worth of abstracted information. The information conveyed does not contain any intrinsic meaning as this information must be compiled (yes, DNA does in fact have a compiler built into itself). "Intrinsic" is the key word, as the information is not inherent to the chemical laws or atomic properties.

Seems like you two forget what you are argueing about a lot.

------------------
The learned man knows that he is ignorant - Victor Hugo

Nah can't remember how we got here. I probably changed the subject out of nowhere.

"I will praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are your works, and my soul knows very well." Psalm 139:14

(Heh, and I heard on the TV today that most people think Creationism is simple.....*KATHUNK* (Ereon is out cold, and will be in the hospital having his fingers treated for joint disfunction, thank you for your patience.....))

------------------
All that is gold does not glitter
Not all those who wander are lost

The old that is stong does not wither
Deep roots are not touched by the frost

From the ashes a fire shall be woken
A light from the shadows shall spring

Renewed shall be blade that was broken
And the crownless again shall be King

DNA uses modular design, genetic algorithms, compression, encryption, multiple secure backups, exception handling, self-compiling, gradients and switches that allow its operations to be context-sensitive, feedback loops, and self-generated ‘test patterns’ that allow the system to tune itself. While the system is designed for preventing mutations and maintaining stasis within certain boundaries, mutations can occur. During replication, there is roughly one mistake in every 10 million bases for natural DNA. And for reference, the 1 in 10 million error rate doesn't take into consideration proofreading and error correction, which pushes the rate to about 1 in 10 billion.

Example error rates in human designed technology for comparison:
1 in a million - Acceptable voice quality through a T1 channel
1 in a million - Microwave signaling error rates
1 in a billion - Modern hard disk error rates with low fault tolerance

Due to recent DNA research, we now know that in order for mutations to be beneficial they have to be precise and made in exact multiple locations. Genes are not a single "switch" controlling one feature, as previously thought, but is encoded data which is expressed to control multiple features. This is called "pleiotropy", where a mutation to one gene results in a cascade of changes. Non-coding genes, formerly known as "junk DNA", as well as the structures in RNA apparently play a large role in the expression of genes. In order to maintain their evolutionary models, naturalistic philophers have invented a new gene termed a "generalist"--a gene which in essence is a singel switch--in order to make their models semi-plausible. This gene has never been observed in nature. From research submitted to PNAS we know that if DNA's error checking is impaired the resulting organism can't survive. Also, if the gene is expressed out of order the result can be the death of the organism or an impairment of critical systems (the neurological axons in mice for example, as I read in recent research).

My tentative hypothesis is that the information in DNA is purposefully divided into 2 data sets. One data set contains the "blueprints" for the species, and the other is a series of variables controlling the physical features. The first data set is rigorously defended against change while the second is purposefully allowed to change. During reproduction these variables, including information stored from several previous generations (most species store information as far as the great-great-grandparent, and can even restore information from this backup in the event of errors), would be run through a function, perhaps a randomizer, to produce the physical features. In contrast, many naturalistic philosophers believe this recombination of information isn't the result of a specific mechanism, but due to random mutations which would be effective on a micro and macro scale. I have a hard time believing this considering how easy it is to trace my own heritage based upon physical features.

If this hypothesis is indeed correct, and this data separation exists, this would mean that the "a large series of micro evolutionary changes eventually leads to a macro evolutionary change" idea would be invalid. Natural selection, which experimentally has been shown to be a negligible "force", would also only effect DNA on a micro scale. Only random mutations, acting against DNA's stasis systems, would be capable of introducing changes on a macro scale. I suppose this would be Neo-Neo-Darwinism?

P.S. Sorry......When I get rolling its hard to stop for trivial things such as paragraphs or grammarical correctness Also, please correct me if any of my facts are wrong or incomplete.

------------------
All that is gold does not glitter
Not all those who wander are lost

The old that is stong does not wither
Deep roots are not touched by the frost

From the ashes a fire shall be woken
A light from the shadows shall spring

Renewed shall be blade that was broken
And the crownless again shall be King

[This message has been edited by Ereon (edited May 09, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Ereon (edited May 09, 2005).]

quote:

---

EDIT: Oops, duh, if a mutation to the species-level data set occurred and the resulting organism lives natural selection would still be effective. If the modification is devolution yet not crippling the change could still propogate. If the mutation is, against all odds, beneficial this would of course make this "new" line the fittest in its species, and more likely to survive. So saying natural selection wouldn't effect changes to the species level data set would be wrong. Then again, it's now known that a mutation that occurred several generations back down the line can be self-corrected. Taking that into account, natural selection would have so little effect it might not even be worth mentioning it as a factor.

Oh well, I came to this realization over the weekend that, based upon what I've been reading the last 6 months, there was a seperation of data and a difference in how the data sets are treated internally. The above is my thoughts on the repercussions if my hypothesis is true. Unfortunately, it's way too early to make a statement like that, especially considering the lack of empirical evidence, so I don't think I should put it in the final article.

---

Oh, and some scientists would argue with this statement you made:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ereon:
On the contrary, that is a plausible theory, except for one problem, there as not been one documented observation of an organism going through a mutation large enough to change their overall DNA, and then actually benefit from it.

---

For example, the development of penecillin resistant strains of bacteria by mutations has been observed for years in the laboratory. Unfortunately, these scientists often fail to note that in the popularized cases this form of "immunity" against penecillin involves a loss of functionality in the organism's cellular machinery in the membrane which penecillin requires. Many organisms contain built-in mechanisms that self-modify in defense. Furthermore, laboratory experiments have shown that a mutation that confers resistance to one antibiotic may make the bacterium more susceptible to other antibiotics. These deleterious effects may confer a benefit in a particular environment, but the overall fitness of the population of one kind of bacterium is decreased as a result of a reduced function of one of the components in its biological pathway. The accumulation of mutations doesn't lead to a new kind of bacterium—it leads to extinction.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited May 09, 2005).]

However, you've gotten me thinking... if a change was made in a bunch of these "simple units" then would it cause a huge domino affect on the much more complex levels? Sort of like "Bob goes back in time and accidentally steps on a mere butterfly and returns to the present and the English language doesn't exist anymore".

Let's all take a field trip to the quantum level and mess things up and see what happens once we're back to normal size.

quote:

---

My apologies for not replying for a while

---

Don't worry. We've had forums members leave - to return months (years?) later . . .

quote:

---

if a change was made in a bunch of these "simple units" then would it cause a huge domino affect on the much more complex levels?

---

Depends on the amount & types of changes.

A nuclear reaction is a domino effect. But if I were to pick up an object on my desk an inch and drop it, it would make a sound, displace a litte bit of air, but ultimately change nothing.

So - it all depends . . .

------------------
6 "This is what the LORD says --
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.

8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." -- Isaiah 44:6-8, NIV

God: (err.. i lost count around 800000 zillion)

Satan: (losing more every day)

THAT WAS SO COOL!

That professer sould pick up a bible some time!

HAHA I LOVE IT WHEN THIS HAPPNS!

------------------
God rules.

...no duh