http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...le-aged-brain/
I'm feeling better already...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...le-aged-brain/
I'm feeling better already...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
This is good stuff. I've read similar findings before, and they're very interesting. This sort of thing happens to me all the time in classes I teach: the kids help me out when I forget specific pop culture references or the everyday small things in life (btw, I lose my keys all the time!), but as soon as we discuss an in-depth argument, many of these 20 year olds have a tough time with creative insights and extended argumentation.Originally Posted by Pedal2Metal
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...le-aged-brain/
I'm feeling better already...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
It's also true that geniuses from different disciplines have varying peaks, as you probably know Pedal. In philosophy, for example, some of the greats like Santayana or Kant didn't hit their peak untill their 50s or so.... and many others kept writing great stuff well into their 80s. In music, by contrast, the peak seems to be much earlier (think of Mozart, Satie, etc.), although there are always exceptions (Glass seems to still be going strong).
Great link!
It's perfectly fine to say that Mozart peaked in his youth rather than later in life but the example's a bit skewed by the fact that he died during the peak.
that would be ironic, 90% of all scietist in the world are atheist..
that help us realized how god might not exist, without them even knowing..
for example.. the aztecs, mayans, egyptians, romans.. believed that their was a god of the sun, the rain, etc..
now we know the sun is just a ball of fire, and that rain is caused from water that is (... you know...) after that their is rain..lol
and there you go..
Fair point! I've noticed in my own music collection, though, that my favorite bands tend to peak earlier rather than later. There are some exceptions. The Throwing Muses seemed to be amazing for a very long time. But most groups fade away.It's perfectly fine to say that Mozart peaked in his youth rather than later in life but the example's a bit skewed by the fact that he died during the peak.
There were also some great thinkers who were precocious beyond belief: Mill, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard, for example. The latter two died at relatively young ages (in their 40s), but they showed no signs of letting up. Mill likewise became a stronger thinker as he aged. Perhaps Pedal or someone can correct me on this, but I seem to recall that great mathematicians and physicists also peak early. I think Einstein, for example, had his most revolutionary insights in the first couple of decades of the 20th century. I believe he was very active for a long time afterward, but nothing quite on par with his special and general theories of relativity.
A little fun fact: I was house sitting for a professor of mine (John J. Compton) one summer in Nashville, TN. As I was wandering around the house one evening, I came across a Nobel Prize! Ha! Quite enjoyable to see in person. It was his father's, Arthur Holly Compton, and he won it for what is now known as the Compton Effect in physics. I think he made his discovery at around the age of 30, which is indeed quite young.
Last edited by Zefelius; 05-04-2010 at 08:12 AM.
the argument of god comes down to the definition of god. most people think of an all-creator, in which case, they assume that there is intention behind the creation itself. a creator can create without intending to.
i dont believe there is an old dude with a beard and a white robe who greets you after you die, and tells you which way youre going etc. i dont believe in any of the popular religious texts either, as they are all disturbed by man and interpreted through the limited capabilities of humans, and written as so. they make god appear as a human like being with anger, benevolence, decision making, intent, etc, which to me just seem like fairy tales written to help explain how we as humans operate.
however whether or not there is something greater than just 'chance life', that is how scientists believe we and all life have come to exist, just the right enviornment etc, i do believe there is. there is something that i label as the 'life force', and that this exists to me notions towards some kind of design, be it the life force itself or the potential creator of the life force. cells divide billions of times over, know which cell to turn into, know when to start and stop doing their job, and know how to do their job. plants are not different in terms of life, nor are animals with all their adaptations and physical features designed for this world. the driving force behind life's spawn and the continuation therein, is what i define as the life force.
i had the same thoughts, the same from, gods being created by man, and not being true.. and to this "life force" you're talking about.. sometimes when i have to walk home...(like 35 mins) i think about life.. specially this thing that you're talk about, what exactly is that makes us live?, we are a bunch of cells put together, if a little thing, as disease harms us, we are pretty much dead.. once we die, that image looks like you now become nothing, like a doll.. but when you had life, you are a human "with no brain" just walking round.. just doing what everone else wants you to do... and it feels weird to me. i relate the common population to animals.. the thing we pretty much are.. its only like .000001% population of the world that actually has "human" capabilities.. so i think their is no god, and we just came about in an accident looong ago... when million of cells, unralated to each other bump in water, and until one day, the correct formation came about, and started life
accident doesn't exist in the logical-physical world. we are a product of accurate evolutionary adaptations. this is probably what you call "accident". however, if this is true where do accidents, then, stem from? within the universe of logic, everything has to stem from something. in the end, logic and human thinking will fail us. the universe and meaning of life is absurd. the good thing about this is that you can do and think whatever you want without ever doing or thinking anything wrong. so if you want to believe in god do it as there is no logically valid evidence indicating that this would be a wrong thing.
thats what most people tend to think HGB, especially scientists, that we are just an accident of chance that developed through spontaneous science. the argument in itself is very flawed, as evolution itself cannot explain why life exists, whether it be simple or complex. in order to have evolution you first need life. however, what is life, how does it exist, how did it come to be, and why is it manifested in so many differnet ways? life isnt tangible, you cant just throw certain cells together and create it. its not exactly living conditions either, as we now understand life flourishes just about anywhere, from underwater volcanic eruptions to within sheets of solid ice in the artic. its something that has intent, or conscious, and is inexplainable through science. though this doesnt mean one must turn to 'faith', as for most people those are the only two options for one reason or another.
logic, science, and 'faith' together should be one school of thought, as humans tend to want to divide and categorize everything for one reason or another, but at one point in time we were very wholisitc creatures who used all schools of thought as our guide through this life. now using this school of thought to understand why we are here etc is not easy and, given our current limited perception on the reality in which we exist, i doubt we can find out those answers on our own anyhow, be it though science, faith, etc. there is a miracle that is both life and the reality in which it and we exist, as well as any and all realities that exist outside of our current limit of perception pertaining to existence, yet there is sciencse within this reality as well, the two are not to be divided and either shunned upon.
Showtek, i ahev different views, i think everything is either accident or luck..
throughtout history it can be shown,.. dictators coming into power that could have been a accident, for many reasons,.. mozart being able to have pianos, and a piano father could have been luck, earrthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, all accident, i dont think they are accurate. things, unless its a "prophecy"
aheadatime, i think they should be divided though, beccause one contradicts the other, like my questions, about an unstopable force hitting an unmovable object.. you cant have someone saying, that earth took billions of years, and another saying it took 6 days or something like that. it wouldnt work
it depends on your definitions of "luck" and "accident".
dictators may have come to power because of "lucky" incidents. idk, maybe some important person of the opponents just got a heart attack or something like that. however, this and other accidents, like natural catastrophes, all happen because of accurate reasons. a heart attack because of a too fat diet that culminated at that exact point. a tornado because of these exact conditions in the air at this exact point in time. every incident in this world can be led back to 100% accurate reasons. luck and accidents aren't something that happen by random chance but something that we can't anticipate because we haven't the instruments or intelligence to do so.
the only thing that can't be tracked down is the beginning of existence or the meaning of life, thus making all this absurd and uncertain.
which is why i said i dont believe in any religious texts, theyre falsified and have been misinterpreted over time, giving them an artificial human contextual touch. however to think that science and that which some call 'god' are two seperate entities is the wrong idea imo, as any sort of creator, given an intentional or unintentional creation, must have created both science as well as the 'life force', giving a very logical and exact world in which to reside.
scientists have recently began to study the idea of infinite dimensions within the very space we occupy currently, and 'parallel universes' therein, stating that the big bang initially started as a clash between two ethereal membranes, and that this event is ongoing, meaning infinite universes are constantly spawning while others are 'dying'. they have been using the particle collider to attempt to enduce a negative amount of energy post-experiment, which they imply would mean that the energy has been forced into another dimension within our space. the question would then be, how could this be possible, and what is beyond these 'membranes', why are they moving, why does their clash create a unique medium that we label as 'space', and what is the medium outside of these bubble universes in which the membrances would reside.
now if you can even imagine at this point wondering what is beyond the aforementioned questions pertaining to the membranes, and beyond that, and further, etc, there seems to be no end to existence itself, regardless of what form its in or how abstract the idea becomes. now this would imply that there are multiple parallel universes within this space, meaning also that everything ive ever done has been done different with different outcomes, differnet feelings, and different lifes thereafter. with this being said, apply that concept to the possibility of a god. wouldnt it seem more 'fair' now that everything gets to happen to me, rather than focusing on one single universe in which i seem to die in an unjust way, and then those around me blame god, or disbelieve in god altogether after my death. in other words, its all fair, because every possible outcome ends up happening to me, and all of you. since our consciousness is being manifested in this single universe and dimension, it appears to be all we can conceive as truth, and therefore we limit our perception of 'what is', and what it is that 'god' has created, which is so much more than what we understand.
again, i want to stress that i dont believe god as a physical being, nor do i believe in a devil or hell, as these things were created by religion. the possibe god that could exist would be some higher form of conscious, that which needs no 'life' as it is above the very life force that spreads throughout this reality were in.
"evolution itself cannot explain why life exists, whether it be simple or complex."
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life: trying to combine the two is one of the great straw men that creationists keep raising
Last edited by Cymru; 05-04-2010 at 06:09 PM. Reason: needed quotes
well, the theory definitely explains how the human being evolved out of bacteria, then fish like creatures and finally apes. i wouldn't exclude the possibility that it also explains all other forms of life in this universe but if it doesn't, it at least explains the origin of the human species and 99% or 100% of all species on the earth.
exactly my point. not only does evolution fail to explain how life came to be on earth, it always fails to explain what exactly life is and why it exists not only here, but anywhere in existence. why do physical objects composed of cells, water, carbon, etc, have a conscious that feels and experience?
and besides, evolution isnt a sure fire thing, only a theory. fossils are merely implications towards its possibility, not definite proof. i personally believe in micro evolution but macro evolution is harder to grasp, not saying its not true, very much could be.
I think creationists means somthing different to 'evolutionists' when they say 'explain' or 'doesnt explain'. So it is hard not to end up at cross purposes.
We also have a major problem with defining 'life'.
To a physicalist that might be a process and it might need no more explination than any other chemical process. To the other side it is why is there a 'what it is like to be me".
Personally i struggle with the idea that there could be a situation where there was NOT somthing that it is like to be me unless i didnt exist. That would be like there being a statue of liberty but it not being made of anything. So it doesnt strike me as something that needs a lot of extra explaining.
I've always found with most structured religions when you look closely it is really hard to see how a god with the traits the god is supposed to have would act in the way the religions say they act. It isnt just difficulty to understand - it is grossly contradictory. So even while thy claim evolution has contradictions or gaps their alternate theory is almost nothing but contradictions and gaps.
Still all that being said Im sympathetic to the idea of the minimalist not entirely benevolent (in our sense) sort of a god.
Well you could say that about anything in history if you are demanding a sort of proof that history cant provide....
I tend to think that evolution is a little more certain than that the american revolution occured but somewhat less certain than that gravity exists.
Two things:
1. As has been noted above, evolution never intended to explain how life came to be on earth so you cannot say it "fails" at it. It is like saying you have failed to win the Olympics when you never even entered any event.
2. Are you positively sure that bacteria is conscious ? I would rather doubt it. What evolution DOES explain is the path from bacterial level life to humans -- and its all natural every step of the way and does not need interference from an omnipotent being. Somewhere along that path consciousnes was born.
This is why I do not see the need for your type of god=life-force either.
this is a typical, failed dualistic approach. physical object do not have metaphysical traits. a consciousness and feelings are chemical electrodes that flow through your brain. you have been equipped with those by the evolution in order to improve your chances of survival and reproduction. feelings are very useful. they can bind you to a person with good genes that will assure you your reproduction chances (love), they will help you remove those that have betrayed you (anger) which will, too, improve your reproduction, they will alarm you when objects are threatening your survival (angst), etc.
at the moment, it is accepted that the consciousness evolved because of the growing importance of teamwork which required the subject to be able to be empathic and to use advanced language.
what you call "life" is a mere narcissistic and egocentric view that most humans share. they circumscribe themselves and other species from other object existing. we're made of the same material, of the same particles, as a stone, fire, sand, a tree, whatever you can imagine. there is no evidence indicating that we should consist of material that can't be found. metaphysics have never been proved and probably never will.
the only valid flaw in the theory of evolution is that it can't explain itself. how was the evolution created and why does it work the way it does? which, again, leads us to the insight that nothing is certain. so you can believe in whatever you like.
This kind of bacteriaist attitude is exactly the kind of thing so many of us come here to escape! Oh I'm so distraught!
nice to see you around again, zso.
are we now talking about which species have consciousness? it has been proven empirically that only the human being has such an advanced consciousness. it is likely that some apes and dolphins have developed first steps of a consciousness as well. all lower species have almost certainly not. the lower you go at the intelligence rate, the less likely is a consciousness.
Nicely put Showtek.
Evolution is supposed to be scientific but it's not. It's religion. Asking me to believe in something I haven't directly observed is the same fundamental thing regardless of the something in particular. Whether it be billions of years, spontaneous generation, God, history, life-force, etc.... It all boils down to what you said:
Nothing is certain. Chosen belief is required.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
even if it's true (for now) that chosen belief is required, it's hard for me to accept that you put evolutionary theories on par with devised fake stuff. IF we assume that the physical world exists, then we have to assume that evolution is true too. it is logically build up in accordance with all the laws of this universe. it can never be 100% proven that evolution formed us unless we find out how to travel in time. but this theory prises the likelihood open to a level of more than 99%.
from a philosophical view, of course, a giant crab eating all of the world in 1 minute is just as false or true as all theories of science or religion. cause we haven't even proven truth, existence or even the questioning of them.
I agree that even if something is true, it still requires chosen belief of some measure. I also agree that the measure of chosen belief does vary so complete fabrications require a higher measure than a more plausible explanation.
However, your assumptive sentence (if assumption #1 is true, then assumption #2 must be true) isn't logical at all & is just a broad brush stroke with no genuine logical foundation. This reveals your bias but that's fine. Everyone has one so I'm nothing special there either.
Some aspects of evolution I agree with because they are observable (genetic adaptation within a species over time). The unobservable aspects are just as "mysterious" as "God" & require just as much faith so I'm not sure why I have to "assume evolution is true". So I don't. It's like accepting the "non-causal force" that's never been observed as a physics-oriented explanation for the big bang (Carl Sagan discussed this in one of his books). How that is any less of a step of faith than believing in God, I have no idea. Both seem equally faith-oriented. Some people just prefer the idea of a mindless universe while most people do not. I guess most people prefer the idea of God because the idea of intelligence coming from a non-intelligent universe seems intuitively out-of-place.
Regardless, you got the conclusion right: Believe what you want, it's all we ever do.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-05-2010 at 04:54 AM.
what decided that i would be equipped with the electrodes? evolution argues a blank necessity. life isnt necessary, just as survival isnt necessary. the "first life in bacterial form" had no added features to ensure its existence, yet not every complex life system has said features. what decided that these features would spawn, and what implemented them physically, and why didnt bacteria just stay as bacteria? same thing that decides which cells do what when a human is in the embryodic stage of life. i call it the life force but im not sure what science would call it, the natural manifestation of life through any and every form it can possibly take. why does this happen? the uncertain aspect i can agree with, as i think that we as humans have limited thought capabilities and therefore either cannot technologically examine the very origin of life or its reason for existence, nor can we conceive mentally the same questions.
Last edited by Aheadatime; 05-05-2010 at 05:03 AM.
You have to be careful with what you call "observable" evidence. Darwin has observed variations in bird species on the Gallapagos islands and that started him working on his theory which led to the collection of many more observations. Modern science of evolution has added many more indirect observations from fossil data as well as experiments on sand worms and fruit flies where practical evolutionary changes can be demonstrated in short time-scales. All in all I would say evolution has a whole lot more observable evidence than particle or quantum physics. Bluntly put: have you ever directly observed an atom or an electron ? Have anybody ever did ? So their existence is also a matter of faith ?
my point on evolution was that its a very limited theory that not only requires faith to believe, as does god, but even if you put in all of your beleif, you still come out missing the most important pieces of information one could want, which is the aforementioned questions of how we came to be etc. evolution attempts as basically explaining survival of the fittest, and i can agree with this on a micro scale, but not macro.
i never said bacteria is conscious, i was referring to us humansyour next statement is subjective and incomplete. saying that evolution explains from the bacterial to the now is wrong, it implies what happened, not proves it. also, there is no positive evidence that all life spawned from bacteria either, the origin of evolution itself is based on an implication. 'somewhere along the line consciousness was born' doesnt seem to fit right. consciousness is the most complex thing a life can acquire, and is still hard to explain by even modern scientists. they can attempt at understanding bits and pieces of it, like pyschologists and pyschiatrists, even neuro biologists have worked toward understanding it, and they all seem to come up vastly short of some core information. how did it come to be, why is it here, and why does our species have such an evolved conscious compared to the rest? if evolution is correct and is based on necessity, was it REALLY necessary for our concsious to evolve ten fold in a single evolutionary step while other species have had no need whatsoever for this feature pertaining to basic survival? in other words, we can and supposedly did survive without this advanced of a conscious, why is it here now if evolution only spawns on necessity?
Hes talking about the macro, not the micro. Micro evolution is obvious, macro is subjective. Also, atoms and electrons are observed on a daily basis, in labs regarding quantam physics as well as simple chemistry and biological labs. Their existence is proven, not faith.
Pedal:
well.. no.
evidence indicating that we stem from chimpanzees is found in their use of hands as tools, in their evolving consciousness, in there physical appearance which is very alike to ours, in their skeleton that is similar to ours
and of course all the skeletons that have been found that show species that share both features from the chimpanzees and the homo sapiens. we have found all evidence in the earth demonstrating the process of chimpanzees involving into humans. imagine you find a 150000 years old skeleton of a chimpanzee that's somehow different from its conspecific but shares some traits with the homo sapiens. then you find one which is 120000 years old and further involved into this direction, neither being today's chimpanzee nor today's human being. at some point there's us. i only enlarge this to give you facts that you can't just elide. ignoring this is - ignorant. saying that every of these skeletons was a species by them self, at some point created by god like all species and at some point died out is just plain dumb.
i don't care if i'm being polemic. but i will you remind you anyway that this is university consensus all over the world. if you want to be a psychologist, you better stop being religious. evolutionary psychology will give you undeniable facts. i don't have to talk about natural sciences. there is no place for illogical science in today's modern societies.
Agreed. We now live in the 21st century. Let's stop with all the anti-bacteria prejudice and discrimination!!
I agree. The fruit flies experiments are the most compelling IMO. However, there's a lot more to evolution than genetic adaptation within a species as evolution attempts to explain the origins of all species which requires significant leaps of faith due to the unobservable nature of the time periods involved as well as some of the key requirements in the processes to go from non-living material to living material (consciousness is something beyond this as well).
Obviously, I might take issue with your criticism of quantum mechanics being an electrical engineer but it too is a theory. So yes, while atoms & electrons are models that seem to fit the observable behavior to-date, they still require chosen belief to accept their existence. It's definitely bizarre that electromagnetic radiation exhibits the properties of particles & waves.
I'll go even further:
When you see something & then close your eyes, is it a fact it still exists while your eyes are closed? How do you know?
Basically, every single thing we do in life requires chosen belief as there is nothing absolutely certain as Showtek pointed out. That's why I'm not impressed by the self-proclaimed "evangelists of reason" that pepper the scientific & engineering community. We all want to believe we are so rational & yet just like the real number system, the irrationals are required & more fundamental to life than the rationals (pi, e, etc...). In addition, you can't derive the irrationals from the rationals although you can produce the rationals from the irrationals so the irrationals, ironically, are the more primal of the sets.
No one can escape the pervasiveness of belief within this universe of uncertainty. So that's the one common denominator amongst every single human being that has ever existed or ever will exist:
We must all decide for ourselves about the universe, life, etc... & those decisions drive the rest of our lives, for better or for worse.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
I am torn between ignoring all of this and going on a 20 page rant. Maybe I will refer to my favorite, physics Laureate Richard Feynmann. When a reporter pressed him for an explanation of magnetism he finally replied "I can't explain it in terms you are familiar with, because I don't understand it in terms you are familiar with"
It is a common conceit that anyone can talk meaningfully about complex scientific concepts and processes without any training in the field. You can *believe* anything you want, but if you want to comment meaningfully on the process of evolution, and the evidence (or lack thereof), then you really need to have spent several years in intense study of the topic.
Last edited by Cymru; 05-05-2010 at 05:44 AM. Reason: add meaningfully
Showtek, All of that "evidence" is simply anecdotal, not causal, nor connective. The fact that isn't obvious to you indicates your bias towards the theory. You're doing the same thing that every religious zealot does: Takes the data & fits it within his/her theory. Just because it "fits" doesn't mean it's the only explanation or even a correct one. This is also true for quantum theory, string theory, etc.... These are all theories & we have to decide for ourselves. There's a reason they are called "theories" & not "laws".
The whole world used to think the earth was flat too.
Your arguments are illogical & based in religious dogma. It's just evolutionary theory is the religious doctrine.
Believe what you want but don't make it out to like your arguments are the end-all & we must all follow suit because it's so "logical". I find it funny you even made the arguments. I guess being an absurdist doesn't prevent one from being absurd.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-05-2010 at 05:47 AM.
The converse conceit is equally common: To dismiss out of hand the comments of those untrained in the field.
Doesn't this just reduce down to: Conceit is common?
I'd be open to a 20 page rant so long as you are open to question(s) vs. diatribes alone.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-05-2010 at 06:30 AM.
That's very true. I myself have read two Darwin books, as well as some articles and other books on evolution, but must admit that my knowledge on the subject is quite small and essentially ignorant.
When it comes to the subject of philosophy, I can't help but smile when people I come across in everyday life assume that they have mastered the subjects of ethics or epistemology because they once took a few philosophy classes in college, have read Plato or Descartes, or something along those lines. Even within a subject there are specialties, as you know. So while I've read the majority of Plato's dialogues at least a few times each, and some of them closer to 10 times each, compared to a real expert on Plato I'm an absolute novice.
On the other hand, I don't think it's a bad idea to have these kinds of talks. We can't all be experts in these fields or subfields, but that shouldn't prevent us from reading up a little bit on Darwin and having an interesting talk about it. As long as we're humble about it and don't presume to have apodictic certainty in fields other than our own, I think we'll be okay. But if we pretentiously assume to know that which we don't, then Socrates was right to claim that only arrogance and moral disaster will follow.
Last edited by Zefelius; 05-05-2010 at 06:06 AM.
Well-said Zef.
I'll add that humility is always beneficial & presuming apodictic certainty, even in our own field, is fraught w/peril. Plenty of historical & present-day examples where the "experts" have been wrong.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
the arguments weren't illogical. they were based on what we can perceive in the world and follow all rules of deductive reasoning. you all must follow "my end-all arguments"? these are the simply basics of what is common knowledge. no person that is known for his efforts in biology, psychology, probably even all marginally related domains, would doubt what i have written. the pay for your ignorance would be nothing more than a shake of the head. regardless of if you live in L.A., tokyo, paris, sydney or montreal.
pedal, i can show you a paper that is red and you say it's blue. what else can i do? i give up.
he's saying that although logical, theyre not fact. you can't claim that evolution is a fact and is indeed the very explanation of the timeline of the second after life spawned to now. there are implications within evolution, many of them, and many are not proven, the majority are not proven. fossils themselves are suggestive evidence. noone witnessed the evolution, macro evolution anyway, and therefore it cannot be proven neither right nor wrong. in addition, even if bits and pieces of evolution were proven correct, the entirety of evolution misses alot of information that one would deem 'crucial' towards understanding who we are and where we reisde.
ill go back to the questions i posted a page back in response to one your earlier posts. read that post.
You remind me of a story: The alien & the frog.
An alien finds this frog. He tells it to jump, & it jumps. He cuts off 1 leg & tells it to jump & it jumps. He cuts off both legs & tells it to jump, & it doesn't.
His conclusion: The frog couldn't hear him.
A perfectly logical explanation. Enjoy!
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-05-2010 at 06:41 AM.
Since the thread has been reduced to this level or argument, I suggest we get back to Civ Rev. If you are really interested in the evolution:creationism argument there are literally tens of thousands of pages already on the internet. I see no value in repeating them hereYou remind me of a story: The alien & the frog.
An alien finds this frog. He tells it to jump, & it jumps. He cuts off 1 leg & tells it to jump & it jumps. He cuts off both legs & tells it to jump, & it doesn't.
His conclusion: The frog couldn't hear him.
A perfectly logical explanation. Enjoy!
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
