In my humble opinion, debates of this kind are, to put the matter in
simple terms, stupid. We, as human animals, are no more able to perceive
the larger picture, than are ants.
Take, as an example, the simplest living thing. Can scientists create it
? They cannot. Who invented the wheel ? Was it man ? No, it was who or
whatever invented man. Inherent in the universe is some sort of
intelligence. We don't understand it: what's more, we can't understand
it. Were we able, then we would be God.
Why argue ?
AR-SK-73 de N5TKR (Tire Kick'n Redneck)
On duty (?) operator: Terrible Terry
But your right. The argument was (and is) pretty stupid. After all, how
can anyone honestly believe that an intellegent creator was involved in
making humans? I mean, why would anyone design a being with an appendix,
or whose eye's have big blind spots due to the way the nerves enter the
eyes, or who actually sees things upside-down and backwards (think about
dyslexia for a sec), or who walks on two legs but has a spine designed
for a quadraped? Wy would a designed human have a tail?
Why would a "creator" create a being who has a "split" brain, when a
single lobe *could* be designed to work just as effectivly, but not have
all the problems with communication between the lobes that does happen
with two-lobed creatures (look at stroke victims for a good example of
what happens when the brain communicate work right)? Why would an
intellegent creator create a brain that is *so* dependent on
near-perfect conditions to work correctly, and minor disruptions can
cause hallucinations, delusions, uncontrollable moods, etc. (the
majority of humans, globablly, will either have an organically-caused
mental illness, be related to someone with such an illness, or know
someone with an illness)?
Why would an intellegent creator make a femal organism that has it's
vagina *between* the legs, when having it farther up the body would
result in far fewer birth injuries due to pelvic constraints (Note: most
babies have injuries, allbeit minor, common, and easily healed, due to
being born in a birth canal that's too small).
Why would designed humans have the gene for a webbed, six-fingered hand
be the *dominent* gene (Hey, it doesn't have to be common to be
dominent)?
Yeah, and there are millions more like this, all evidence of either
blind chance or a creator who stuck humans together with no thought at
*all*, and really sucked at it. It IS a silly arguement, Ham. There is
no evidence that humans were designed, and it is silly to think
otherwise.
Jessica Wolfman
loup...@webtv.net
"It is a pervasive and beguiling myth that the people who design
instruments of death end up being killed by them. There is almost no
foundation in fact. Colonel Shrapnel wasn't blown up, M. Guillotin died
with his head on, Colonel Gatling was shot. If it hadn't been for the
murder of cosh and blackjack maker Sir William Blunt-Instrument in an
alleyway, the rumor would have never got started."
--Terry Pratchett, "Feet Of Clay
My Websters says manifestation is: 1. 1 & 2. something that manifests
(manifest: something that is evident); 3: a form in which a being
manifests itself (a form in which it makes itself evident), esp a
spirit; 4. a public demonstration.
You say "are creations manifestations" but you don't specify what
creations are. Do you believe in the biblical creation of life, the
universe, and everything? Or something else? Can a creation prove
itself? Prove what -- that it was created? Can you prove that *you*
personally were created out of thin air? You weren't. Can a creation
hold a demonstration? Sure... if they're really creations and not the
product of evolution. Otherwise it's a bunch of (not end) products of
evolution holding a rally.
"For something to manifest... must it evolve?" Do you mean "for
something to show itself and prove itself, must it evolve?" No. Rocks
show themselves, and they don't evolve. Dead squirrels on the side of
the road are evident, and they no longer evolve. My cats aren't
evolving, but I can see them just fine. Of course, the cat *species* may
or may not be evolving at this very minute, but that's moot.
"Is intellegent life simply DNA evolving?" You're underestimating
evolution here. There was probably a lot of simple trial-and-error and
natural selection at work in "creating" intellegence; it was simply the
smart guys who got to breed and pass on their genes. DNA doesn't really
evolve.
BTW: What is intellegence?
"Is organic life a cancer on an inorganic universe?" Well, No. You're
confusing intellegence (a force, of sorts) with humans, and depending on
your sci-fi of choice, humans are either a blot on the universe, or a
boon. This is very egotistical, to think that humans are, at least now,
that important. We may blow up our own planet, but so what? There are
probably zillions of other planets in this galaxy alone, even if our
system has an unusually high number of planets.
All it takes to be organic is the presence of carbon, and considering
that we are constantly getting bombarded with cosmic stuff, which
eventually becomes part of our bodies, we are not a cancer at all, but
an integral part of the universe.
IMO, to describe something natural as being caused or influenced by
something supernatural dimenishes from the beauty and wonder of nature.
It really sell nature short.
Last Sunday night (not this Sunday, the on before), the sky was black,
there were only a few stars out, and the moon was like a perfect disk of
platinum. In front of the moon was a thin haze, and on the haze were not
one, but two perfectly circular rainbows, surrounding the moon. I could
see the colors perfectly. It was one of the most beautiful things I had
ever seen -- neither my mother nor I had ever seen one before in our
entire lives, and we look at that moon a lot. We watched the rainbows
for about fifteen minutes until the wind blew the haze away.
And to me, the night rainbow was far more beautiful for being *natural*
phenomena caused by the moon's ultra-bright light that night filtering
through the drops of water in that haze, than if it had been created. To
me the difference is like the difference between a bowl of fruit and a
still life painting of the same. Even if it was an exquistely painted
still life, you're still looking at the fruit through someone elses'
eyes. I prefer to see it for real, myself.
you don't want to wake up one morning to find your wife standing over
you dressed all in black breathing heavily with a mask, and a lightsaber
do you?
You have to be careful with jedis......
------john
---------------------------------------
...The desire of riches does not proceed from natural passions within
us, but arises rather from vulgar out-of-doors opinion of other people.
------Plutarch, The Life of Marcus Cato
Visit my website or don't, I don't care, (although, new stuff is being
added at the moment :) )
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/7263
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):
It has a light side and a dark side and it holds everything together.
ri...@webtv.net wrote in article
<67oe97$3bm$1...@newsd-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> I think the female of the species is much closer to understanding these
> self evident truths than we males...Have you ever seen the peculiar glow
> in the aura of a pregnant woman...It's like she knows something that she
> cannot convey in words...I remember how apparent it was in the case of
> my wife...She seemed so content and fulfilled somehow...I would catch
> her from time to time looking as if she was just totally immersed in her
> beings(thats plural)...She seemed connected to some kind of force...I
> really don't know how to explain it...Cheers Every'ONE'!!! and Happy
> Holidays!!!
>