Bob.... please!! "the rules of nature" !!!???

....and may I take the time to point out that your statement would indicate
you place morals [ethics?] secondary to the laws of natural selection and
base survival instincts.

That's not a good thing Bob.

CM

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right
| and wrong.
|
| One of my very closest friends is a detective here in NY. If you think
people
| have an inate understanding of morality and ethics, you are badly
mistaken.
| We don't need religion to teach right from wrong, anymore than we need to
bring
| back Greek mythology.
| I was raised by a scientific family who taught me the rules of nature 1st
and
| morality second.
|
| RB

"Navigator" wrote in message
...


Donal wrote:


Some
of my best friends are religious.


Uh oh! That sounds like "Some of my best friends are black"!!!!


Are you a racist?

Probably! I suspect that we all are.... to a certain extent.


Regards


Donal
--

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God"
becomes an inescapable conclusion.

Why does it become an inescapable conclusion?

Ask yourself the questions.



The current theory ... that we "evolved", is simply not possible in
the timeframes that are available. Scientists have argued that
intense periods of radiation have resulted in periods of
"accelerated" mutation. However, we have now had the opportunity to
see the results of increased radiation .... and it certainly does not
result in rapid advancement of our species.

Are the types of radiation whose effects we have studied the same as the
type that they suggest caused mutations in the past?


Your thumb could not have "evolved" in the history of the planet.

Fascinating.


I've considered all the available options.

What makes you think that the real explanation has been covered by any one
of the available options?


Nothing! I'm trying to conduct this conversation from a scientific
viewpoint. I'm quite happy to consider alternative explanations. Do you
have an alternative to offer? I'd really like to hear it!!




Only one makes sense.

The god hypothesis might be a good way of attempting to explain how the
universe came about, but without evidence to show that god actually
exists,
it remains a hypothesis. I could hypothesise that it was made by
hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional beings, but people that don't choose to
support my hypothesis will have a hard time believing me if I don't show
them some evidence. I don't see why the god hypothesis should be treated
any
differently.

You don't have any hypothesis at all, do you?

I bet that you find it much easier to criticise than to formulate a real
opinion.

If you want to disagree with me, then you should have the balls to put
forward your own beliefs.



Regards


Donal
--

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
However,
we have now had the opportunity to see the results of increased radiation
.... and it certainly does not result in rapid advancement of our
species.

Not true, we have no way presently to plot mutation via changes in solar
radiation, let alone millions of years ago. And there's tons of evidence
that
the planet's radiation curves changed dramatically many times.
Try again.

Don't be silly!

We *have* seen the results of radiation induced mutations .... and they
weren't pretty.


They did not produce a single beneficial mutation!!! .... NOT one!!!

Mutations that are caused by nuclear radiation are not likely to be any
different from mutations caused by solar radiation. Try again!!! Nuclear
radiation has been proven to be fatal to mankind.


Regards


Donal
--

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

If it's matter and antimatter no. You are not considering the "vacuum
energy".

Allright! I'll bite!


Tell us about vacuum energy?



Regards


Donal
--

Donal wrote:

If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God"
becomes an inescapable conclusion.

Why does it become an inescapable conclusion?

Ask yourself the questions.

You asserted that it was an inescapable conclusion, and I'm asking you to
explain why you think that. I asked myself the questions years ago, and
didn't come to the same conclusion that you did. The fact that you seem to
think that I will if I 'ask myself the questions' is arrogant.


I've considered all the available options.

What makes you think that the real explanation has been covered by
any one of the available options?

Nothing!

So, what you're effectively saying is that there are a bunch of ideas, we
have no idea if any of them are correct, so we'll just pick one anyway.


I'm trying to conduct this conversation from a scientific
viewpoint.

You're kidding!


I'm quite happy to consider alternative explanations.
Do you have an alternative to offer? I'd really like to hear it!!

Of course not! What a preposterous notion!


You don't have any hypothesis at all, do you?

See above. See below.


I bet that you find it much easier to criticise ...

I haven't criticised - I've stated my opinion and I've questioned some of
the reasoning presented here. You don't seem to have responded to very many
of my comments. Why not?


... than to formulate a real opinion.

What, exactly, is a "real opinion", Donal?


If you want to disagree with me, then you should have the balls to put
forward your own beliefs.

I already have. The fact that you have responded to virtually none of my
questions in earlier posts in this thread leaves me wondering if you even
bothered to read them. I already stated that I don't think we humans have
very much knowledge of the universe and that I don't think we're in a
position to go making proclamations about its origins.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Donal wrote:

Mutations that are caused by nuclear radiation are not likely to be
any different from mutations caused by solar radiation. Try again!!!
Nuclear radiation has been proven to be fatal to mankind.

"not likely"?? What's that in terms of percentage chance? Please cite
learned references to support your response.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Weeeeeeeeeellll energy and matter are the same thing right? So if
there's mass (=energy) that keeps us orbiting the galaxy without enough
observed mass to create the needed gravity field it follws there there
must be someting like a dark matter (or energy) in the vaccum we that we
cannot see. All the arguments follow from that. If you like, the
mass/energy exists in another dimension which only weakly interacts with
our universe. Put yet another way, only when the gravitation field is
low do the effects of the other 'force' becomes visible.

Cheers

Donal wrote:

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

If it's matter and antimatter no. You are not considering the "vacuum
energy".


Allright! I'll bite!


Tell us about vacuum energy?



Regards


Donal
--

Donal

check these out:

http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

Cheers

Donal wrote:

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

If it's matter and antimatter no. You are not considering the "vacuum
energy".


Allright! I'll bite!


Tell us about vacuum energy?



Regards


Donal
--

We *have* seen the results of radiation induced mutations .... and they
weren't pretty.


Wrong again, Donal. Our "induced" radiation is quite different. Again, We have
NO way of plotting specfic effects of subtle changes in radiation over millions
of years.

RB