Vanna

What I trying to do is look at the fundamentals of the archetype. We know pure water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. If apply electrolysis, we don’t find some mysterious x factor. Hence, I keep coming back to the same question in the various forms I have asked it:
Is organic chemistry ultimately reducible to inorganic chemistry?

The abve question is not asking about compounds or catalysts.

The primary elements found in all life came from either the Big Bang or stars. If you disagree, please name the exception(s).

I was puzzled by the context you used The Theory of Relativity in relation to valency. Elections can skip outer atomic orbits and energy is released but this is not the matter turning into energy. To follow on from above, it would be harmless, to use electrolysis to convert a 200 ml water into hydrogen and oxygen. On the other hand, if you were to apply E-mc2, a glass of water, one could wipe a major city off the map.

“Progress” is an awkward term. Mutation and adaptation are better. Ecology doesn’t if you are human or a nat.

runner,

Could please have a more direct reply. I will reframe:x
Is the Earth over one million years old?

Trav,

My typo. Sorry. Above should read:

“Popper was in an argument with Jung and noted the latter was claiming validity based on his thousandfold experience of (shaky) premise. Popper, replied, would to the effect, “with this discourse we have one thousandfold, plus one”. My point is that if you, the author and one thousandfold others, make the same error, it does NOT correct it.”

Also,

Is the Earth over one million years old?

Grim,

“As Spencer pointed out, evolution shows close parallels to free market economics. Species, like workers, tend to become more and more specialised. This can be quite lucrative for the worker, but at the same time restrictive of employment possibilities, compared to one with more general skills.”

Yes. A good tenet… There are more mechanics than blacksmiths these days.x

OLiver I will answer your question when you tell me how old you think the earth is and how you came to your conclusion.

Vanna,

Now CJ’s pointing out the ways in which you do not understand evolution. I had even pointed that out to you earlier when I said, “if you’re making the classic mistake of thinking that evolution is like a ladder to be climbed, then no, according to the theory of evolution, life does not increase or advance “in time””.

This leads me to what I was going to address in this post...

<<I’m also aware of people (and there appear to be quite a few on OLO) who automatically think that ID is religion, and they seem to religiously attack ID, because they religiously attack religion.>>

ID is certainly a part of a kind of religious belief. Like I suggested to Trav, you should look-up the deceitful origins of ID.

That you are not just the sceptic that you’re painting yourself to be is obvious to all here except yourself. Here’s just some of the reasons why:

-You don’t understand evolution or abiogenesis;

-When someone explains them you resist their explanation with all your might and simply continue to display your lack of knowledge from a new angle;

-You have difficulty differentiating between abiogenesis and evolution;

-You think the act of attacking religion can be classified as a religion itself;

-You’re ‘just sceptical’ of the only two branches of science that conflict with a particular brand of religious belief.

Why aren’t you sceptical of plate tectonics, black hole theory, the theory of gravity, germ theory or atomic theory?

Your alleged scepticism of evolution is either the result of a current religious belief or of childhood indoctrination. I suspect you’re in the same boat as Proxy - you don’t really believe in a god or any specific god anymore, but you’ve retained some inane beliefs from your indoctrination that you’re unable to let go of. This would also explain your rabid anti-feminism.

<<Their religion is to attack religion.>>

Attacking religion is not a religion in itself. I suggest you look up the definition of ‘religion’... http://tinyurl.com/cfuk3t

It is, however, commonsense considering what a destructive force religion has shown itself to be.

OUG,

Still pleased to learn you don't believe that the Creation can be accurately dated from the Bible.

Energy in E=MC2 is usually desinated in "ergs". I was responding to Vann seems to think matter to enrgy transmutation occues when atoms change valency.

david f,

"I don't believe in progress. I think the only meaning we can give to life is in our living of it. I think the concept of an ultimate heat death of our universe is valid and makes the idea of progress ultimately meaningless."

Yes, But playing devil's advocate to my real agreement with you, at the level of biological systems; we do have the Unmoved Mover (Aristotle) which fits in with the universe running down :).

The goal of being motionless, being, perhaps, divine (to the Ancient Greeks). In which case, biological systems are irrelevant to astrophysica progress.

If the universe (one model) cools to abolute zero over trillions upon trillions of years. Earth's little trek into life would be a flash in the pan.

ONE UNDER GOD

I would like to introduce you to your Islamic counterpart.

Meet:

kaanansay

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58304

If you became a Muslim you could be one of the leaders in the Jihad against evolution. It could earn you 72 virgins.

LOL ;-)

Dear Squeers,

There is progress in some areas. There is regress in other areas. I have the impression that the sum total equates to neither progress nor regress, but I could be wrong. There is definitely progress in science. Theories that prove inadequate are eventually discarded to be replaced by theories that better fit the phenomena described. By its nature science progresses.

In religion there is regress. The fairly tolerant pagan religions of antiquity have been replaced in our world by Christianity with its intolerance and narrowness as exhibited on this thread and other places. With its Dark Ages, Inquisitions, Crusades, hate-inspired Holocaust and other horrors Christianity is a definite retreat from paganism. Paganism had its horrors also, but they did not compare in scope with Christianity. Fortunately, secular democratic states can mitigate to some extent the horror of Christianity. There are also Christians such as Bishop Spong who have confronted their bloody history. However, rigid doctrinaires in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism are still perpetuating horrors.

I am considering the ongoing narrative of the Enlightenment. I have read recently or am going to read several books related to Enlightenment - Roy Porter's "Flesh in the Age of Reason" (the British Enlightenment), "The Chinese Enlightenment" and "The Anthropology of the Enlightenment". A Chinese academic is producing a book on the Chinese confrontation with modernity. My part of the study is to evaluate how similar what is called the Chinese Enlightenment is to the Enlightenment in the west.