Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 124 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 33 of 35 1 2 31 32 33 34 35
Tim #21319 05/06/07 11:49 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
The central belief of Christianity is that God "became flesh" and so there is sense in the idea that we are made in God's image, as asserted in Genesis. It is a central tenet of the Christian religion, also and to my mind it sits uneasily next to the modern trndy stuff --God as universal lifeforce. That is covered by the Trinity--it's God the Holy Spirit. Are we now seeing the Christian religion evolving?

Surely God would have no mask---God just is.

.
Tim #21344 05/07/07 07:49 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Thanks, Tim. Like you, without preaching, I can also say: GØD is, for me, the One, the Mono and wears all kinds of loving persons--from the Latin, persona; from which we get our word 'person'. It literally means that through which we make sounds. To my wife, I am her husband; to my children, I am their father; to my friends, I am their friend, and on, and on. But I remain the same person.

Interestingly, people ignorant of the language of Christian theology, including many Muslims, jump to the silly conclusion that the Trinity (Tri-unity) refers to three gods.

I can accept that one of the masks of GØD is the physical universe, "the flesh" as it were. As science, especially the science of physics, is beginning to discover: there is a lot behind that mask, and much of it is still a great mystery.
I can readily accept that all of creation, including religion and science, are in the process of evolving.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
"...the Latin, persona; from which we get our word 'person'. It literally means that through which we make sounds." -Revl.

Fascinating! ...but of course.

...kinda gives another new side to "In the beginning was the word..."

"I can accept that one of the masks of G0D is the physical universe..." -Revl.

That reminds me of the Hindu concept called (I think) Maya. Ever read/familiar with "The Tao of Physics?"

I liked your "Tri-unity" description also.

Thanks,
~Samwik


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
samwik #21504 05/12/07 05:09 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
This thread is entitled 'Evidence for God' and there has been precious little presented in 65 pages of comment.

One person who does think there is clear evidence for God is Professor Anthony Flew.

Flew has been an eminent atheist for decades and a strong apologist for the atheist cause, but over the last few years has moved to a deistic position.

Wikipedia says this about him:

"While an undergraduate, Flew attended the weekly meetings of C. S. Lewis's Socratic Club fairly regularly. Although he found Lewis to be "an eminently reasonable man" and "by far the most powerful of Christian apologists for the sixty or more years following his founding of that club," he was not persuaded by Lewis's argument from morality as found in Mere Christianity. Other philosophical proofs for God's existence also fail, according to Flew. The ontological argument in particular he considers false because it is based on the premise that the concept of Being can be derived from the concept of Goodness. Only the scientific forms of the teleological argument impress Flew as being decisive.[2]

In God and Philosophy (1966) and God, Freedom and Immortality: A Critical Analysis (1984) Flew argued that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He still stands behind this evidentialist approach,[3] though he has been persuaded in recent years that such evidence in fact exists.

In December 2004, an interview with Flew conducted by Flew's friend and philosophical adversary Gary Habermas was published in Biola University's Philosophia Christi, with the title Atheist Becomes Theist - Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew. Flew's conception of God is limited to the idea of God as a first cause.[4]

Professor Flew is a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto III."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew


It is not quite true that Flew has become a Theist, although he is open to it - and is particularly impressed with the work of Gerald L. Schroeder who has written on the convergence of the creation account in Genesis with current cosmological knowledge (not talking about Genesis as understood by the Young Earth Creationists) in his book 'The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom' (New
York: Broadway Books, 1998)..

The interview with Dr. Gary Habermas is here:

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf


It is interesting that Flew dismisses every argument and supposed proof for God's existence except the scientific one.

I might add that except for the general belief in some form of designing intelligence, I am not pushing my own Christian views, and Flew is clearly not in support of them - although his understanding of the 'first cause' seems to be evolving.

On Flew - "The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that, at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a universe exists that can produce complex life. But he is still unsure."



Blacknad.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
When all is said and done, Professor Flew appears to be another Descartes, albeit that his approach may be different. Scientific proof requires a scientific definition, and a defined 'God' who/that is presumably scientifically verifiable. It seems to come full circle to a matter of belief and personal interpretation.

If it's any consolation, my forum pages are longer so I have only 33 for this thread grin


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Blacknad writes:
Quote:
One person who does think there is clear evidence for God is Professor Anthony Flew.
Naturally, I agree with Flew. However, IMHO, I offer the following theory (god-given idea) of GØD:

God and GØD
There is a difference between God and GØD. Belief in God requires faith. But GØD can be understood through reason and patient research.

Let us compare the two:
====================
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION
====================
Here is what I understand--feel free to correct me--is how theists define God:

The God of theism is the one creator of heaven and earth. He knows and controls everything, past present and future.

He requires that we, his creatures give him full obedience and have unquestioning faith in Him and everything he chooses to reveal to us.

As an almighty and Heavenly Father, He--obviously a male-like heavenly father and superior being--preceded the universe, which He created out of nothing. He demands that we worship and obey him on pain of death and eternal damnation. If you are a Jew or a Christian, He is the is the author of the Bible, which is his Word.

According to the Bible, not long after the creation the earth and animal life, He created man, Adam. Then he created woman, Eve--out of man. Eve sinned and led Adam to sin. This led to the fall of all humanity. In his anger God destroyed all humanity in a flood and saved only the family of Noah. From that point on, the descendants of Noah kept waiting for a Messiah who would lead them back to the garden of Eden.

If you are a certain kind of Christian, you believe that the Messiah finally came in the form of Jesus, the one and only son of God, to begin the salvation of the world. About 2000 years ago, the Jews and others, who believed this, became Christians and made the attempt, which failed, to set up the Kingdom of God on earth.

Modern Jews--the descendants of those who refused to accept Jesus as The Messiah--are still waiting for the Messiah.

Meanwhile, Christians are waiting for Jesus to return and finish the work of salvation. Jews and Christians think of God as Lord and Master. He is to be worshipped and obeyed, without question. And here we are.

Muslims, on the other hand, while they accept much--though not all--of the basic story of the Bible, have added the Koran, to correct the mistakes in Bible, and as the final revelation from God.
=======================================================
I OFFER THE FOLLOWING IDEAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DOGMA
=======================================================
MY DEFINITION OF GØD, at this point:

GØD, on the other hand, IMHO, is the One who is in and through, and at one with the cosmos--in full at-one-ment, spoken of by Jesus and his male and female disciples, including the Prophets. They, by their lives of service, did become one with GØD and paved the way for us.

That is, GØD is one with all creation as we are experiencing and exploring it, with the help of the sciences, in the now. GØD and the cosmos is all that is, always was, and always will be.

We are here, in cooperation with GØD, to create and perfect ourselves. GØD, as faith, hope, love, goodness, order, discipline and design in the cosmos, and personal in us, is here to help, not to be a dominating master. As Jesus put it in Luke, I am "among you as one who serves".

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
"It is interesting that Flew dismisses every argument and supposed proof for God's existence except the scientific one."

- And since he doesn't have a scientific one, the supposed evidence is open to personal interpretation. Back to square one. (I've never heard the word 'evidentialist' before - that's a handy piece of rhetoric).
______________________

There are profound things in this universe that are commonly refered to as holy or divine, which can be known but which cannot be expressed in scientific form. They are real, yet cannot be touched. An athiest knows these things just as a theist does, yet they argue endlessly about what they are and from whence they come.

I've just finished listening to Bach's St. Matthew Passion. I don't feel inclined to ask what that 'beauty' is, why it should be so, etc. etc. That it is, is sufficient. Science will never provide a comprehensive answer because it cannot 'feel' the spiritual. Is it evidence for God? The question is meaningless to me. It is what it is.

Last edited by redewenur; 05/13/07 06:04 AM.

"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Blacknad
One person who does think there is clear evidence for God is Professor Anthony Flew. -
...sorry, I'm co-opting this box to recall things that led me to the post below....
[in April, I wrote]
"...A good example is this dilemma, "Evidence for God."
Evidence is a scientific concept (or tool) and is materialistic in nature.
God is not materialistic, but transendent in nature.
ooops, guess I shoulda said ...transends nature." -#20870

[the point being scientific evidence doesn't apply to God]
[& above]
"I can accept that one of the masks of G0D is the physical universe..." -Revl.

[where i then responded]
That reminds me of the Hindu concept called Maya. Ever read/familiar with "The Tao of Physics?" -21396
[..or... 'The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom']-


It sounds as if Flew is limiting himself to evidence from the material/physical world. So as a scientist, he is a methodoligical materialist. It sounds as if he is a philosophical materialist also, I think; although when science reaches the limits of Flew's comprehension, he thinks God "is perhaps the best explanation for why a universe exists that can produce complex life."

Hey! Entropy can explain the origin of life. Why not equate God and entropy?

If he can allow an "impersonal 'prime mover,'" why not a personable one either?

Because then he couldn't still be a philosophical materialist?

Revl, you wrote,
"As science, especially the science of physics, is beginning to discover: there is a lot behind that mask, and much of it is still a great mystery." -21344

This is an interesting point because as we learn more about reality, the material, physical world, it is revealed to be more transcendent in character (transcending spacetime, substance, and dimensions).

Now I'm not saying that because reality 'transcends' Nature, and God transcends Nature, that they are the same thing or science has evidence for God; but it opens up more possible perspectives.
...and when I say "reality 'transcends' Nature," I just mean that reality is much more complex than we are usually aware of.

The only evidence I've tried to offer was back in April, "Thank you God, for screwing with my modem this morning." -21073

~SA
wink

p.s. ~redewenur, I think you have the best summation here:

Science will never provide a comprehensive answer because it cannot 'feel' the spiritual. Is it evidence for God? The question is meaningless to me. It is what it is.

Last edited by samwik; 05/13/07 09:58 AM.

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Blacknad writes:
Quote:
One person who does think there is clear evidence for God is Professor Anthony Flew.
Naturally, I agree with Flew. However, IMHO, I offer the following theory (god-given idea) of GØD:

God and GØD
There is a difference between God and GØD. Belief in God requires faith. But GØD can be understood through reason and patient research.


Rev,

You are off topic.

The difference between God and GØD is irrelevant to this thread topic.

And for a retired minister there is so much wrong with your understanding of mainstream Christian theology that it defies belief - however this is not the place to discuss it.

On a science forum, there can only be one interpretation of the title 'Evidence for God'. It is about whether there is anything that supports or points to a non-naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe within our body of scientific knowledge.

For example, Flew has said that the complex design found in the human genome and certain aspects of cosmology 'presents an overwhelming argument to design'.

Now the questions are something like:

Is there any scientific evidence that would be accepted as evidence for a designer?

Is that evidence there?

Are we interpreting it in the right way?

And so on...

The argument is nothing to do with the nature of that God, and therefore presents no opportunity for evangelism, because a designer may be nothing more than an impersonal force or a deistic non-personal, non-involved intelligence. The argument leads to no definition of God.

Blacknad.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Blacknad comments:"...this is not the place to discuss it (theology)." If you really feel this way, why do you do so?

Then you add: "...there is so much wrong with your understanding of mainstream Christian theology..."

Christian theology. Surely you mean theologies, don't you?

For example, the beliefs of liberal Christian theologians differ from conservative ones. In addition, liberal theologians differs so markedly from what fundamentalist theologians believe that one would think they come from different planets. While respecting the rights of all people to believe a wide variety of theology, I consider myself a liberal-thinking theologian--one with a deep respect for a rational and scientific approach. For me, theology is a science.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
samwik #21531 05/13/07 02:02 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: samwik
Hey! Entropy can explain the origin of life. Why not equate God and entropy?

Can it?

"entropy n. 1 Physics measure of the disorganization or degradation of the universe, resulting in a decrease in available energy. 2 Physics measure of the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work" - Pocket Oxford Dictionary.


It amazes me that life could ever have arisen in a universe seemingly dominated by entropy. There are clearly forces of nature at work that oppose entropy. It may appear to be a losing battle, but life forms, particularly intelligent life forms, are themselves a force that opposes entropy.

Originally Posted By: samwik
This is an interesting point because as we learn more about reality, the material, physical world, it is revealed to be more transcendent in character (transcending spacetime, substance, and dimensions).

...and when I say "reality 'transcends' Nature," I just mean that reality is much more complex than we are usually aware of.

Absolutely. It appears 'more transcendent' only because we are discovering further depths to nature that we find difficult to comprehend. It isn't literally trascendent at all - just very hard for the human mind to understand. Gone are the days of the elephant on the turtle's back - we now create new mythologies; but nature does not, by definition, transcend itself. God, of course, does (if you accept the God hypothesis). So, no matter how incomprehesible we find nature, it's entirely within the scope of science, whereas a transcendent God (personal or impersonal) is not.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Originally Posted By: redewenur
It amazes me that life could ever have arisen in a universe seemingly dominated by entropy. There are clearly forces of nature at work that oppose entropy. It may appear to be a losing battle, but life forms, particularly intelligent life forms, are themselves a force that opposes entropy.


Maybe the not quite science board isn't the place for this question, but I don't understand what people mean when they say things like "a universe... dominated by entropy," and "forces of nature at work that oppose entropy."

What force can possibly oppose entropy (which is not a force at all)?

Also, a universe dominated by entropy would be what, in reality? The predicted final state of the universe, perhaps, but we are quite a bit removed from that date. Our universe has no lack of useful energy.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
soilguy #21534 05/13/07 03:47 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Soilguy: "What force can possibly oppose entropy (which is not a force at all)?"

Yes, I'll have to watch my semantics. Force, as in 'impetus', soilguy, but perhaps it would be better to say 'process'. Sorry about that.

Soilguy: "Also, a universe dominated by entropy would be what, in reality? The predicted final state of the universe, perhaps, but we are quite a bit removed from that date. Our universe has no lack of useful energy."

As we may all know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe tends toward high entropy. That's to say, there are processes in the universe that are converting various forms of energy into heat energy. Certainly, a 'heat death' of the universe would be in the unimaginably distant future, but in the meantime it's on its way, and the process of thermodynamic entropy does in fact dominate. What I find so remarkable about life (living things) is that it's so incredibly complex and organised, and runs counter to the process of entropy.

My understanding (such as it is) is that information and entropy are two sides of the same coin. The 'increase of entropy' is another way of saying the 'loss of information'. The advent of living organisms was, as I said, counter to the process of entropy. Living things are focal points of information. I can't say more, because beyond that I don't know what it means. Maybe someone could open a new thread and provide some info?

Please excuse the detour, but life is so complex that its origin is seen by many as "Evidence for God".


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
I used to have this a my "signature."

"Life is Nature's way of turning light into heat."

This was based on the idea that 'turning light into heat' was an expression of maximum entropy...
...and that 'life' was the most efficient way to do that.

*A chemical reaction that is very unfavorable thermodynamically (?positive enthalpy?), can be made to happen if the entropy of the final products is large enough. [or words to that effect]

So "life,' even though very unlikely (thermodynamically), is virtually assured of originating (IMHO) because of the amazing entropy that living generates.

Birth and death balance out, but living processes create more entropy than anything I can think of (short of a supernova, -maybe).

~SA
wink


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I agree with Blacknad:

"This thread is entitled 'Evidence for God' and there has been precious little presented in 65 pages of comment."

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
I agree with Blacknad:

"This thread is entitled 'Evidence for God' and there has been precious little presented in 65 pages of comment."


Come now! Physicists tell us that "entrophy vanishes at absolute zeror". What is the direct evidence for this?

Though I am not a theist, I agree with them when they say that "the heavens" and all creation contains zillions of tons of indirect evidence for God.

As a unitheist, I KNOW and experience that there is an infinite variety of direct evidence for GØD.

By the way if God made up his mind--GØD is mind--not to believe in atheists, would they cease to exist? smile

And what is the direct evidence for black holes, even galaxies?

Seventy per cent, and more, of medical procedures have never been proved by double-bind studies, does this mean that medical science is a fraud?



Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Sam comments: "Yes, I'll have to watch my semantics. Force, as in 'impetus', soilguy, but perhaps it would be better to say 'process'..."

The great mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/
was a process philosopher and theologian. The idea of GØD fits well with "process philosophy and theology".

Ellis asks: "Are we now seeing the Christian religion evolving?"
YES!!!!!And there are as many species as there are Christians. Like snowflakes, cells, grains of sand, etc. no two are alike. What variety there is! smile Atheism is so unimaginative, boring and dull, and dead-end! Who can possibly be excited by the concept?

Last edited by Revlgking; 05/14/07 11:59 AM.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Originally Posted By: redewenur
As we may all know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe tends toward high entropy. That's to say, there are processes in the universe that are converting various forms of energy into heat energy. Certainly, a 'heat death' of the universe would be in the unimaginably distant future, but in the meantime it's on its way, and the process of thermodynamic entropy does in fact dominate.


Well, entropy is always increasing or remaining the same in a closed system. If you want to call that a domination, OK.

Quote:
What I find so remarkable about life (living things) is that it's so incredibly complex and organised, and runs counter to the process of entropy.


That is not the case. Living things cannot and do not violate the laws of thermo.

There is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that prevents taking useful energy from one place and transfering it to another place. This can happen in either a closed or opened system.

Quote:
My understanding (such as it is) is that information and entropy are two sides of the same coin. The 'increase of entropy' is another way of saying the 'loss of information'.


The entropy terms in information theories are not the same as the entropy term in thermodynamics. In fact, the entropy terms in different information theories are not the same (nor is the definition of 'information' the same in different theories).

Quote:
The advent of living organisms was, as I said, counter to the process of entropy. Living things are focal points of information. I can't say more, because beyond that I don't know what it means.


Damn! I was hoping you could explain what that means! wink

Quote:
Please excuse the detour, but life is so complex that its origin is seen by many as "Evidence for God".


This may be seen by many as evidence for God, but it's nothing more than God of the Gaps thinking, with a little argumentum ad populum thrown in for good measure.

We know life was far less complex in the geologic past. There is no reason for science to throw up its collective hands and conclude anything is so complex that a supernatural being stepped in to give things a nudge.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
soilguy #21561 05/14/07 07:35 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yes, I thought that would get someone going. wink

Originally Posted By: soilguy
Well, entropy is always increasing or remaining the same in a closed system. If you want to call that a domination, OK.

Yes, I do (thanks).

Originally Posted By: soilguy
That is not the case. Living things cannot and do not violate the laws of thermo.

I'm not saying that they actually violate any laws, just that they stand out as an example of what I wouldn't expect as a result of the laws.

Originally Posted By: soilguy
There is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that prevents taking useful energy from one place and transfering it to another place. This can happen in either a closed or opened system.

Obviously.

Originally Posted By: soilguy
Quote:
Living things are focal points of information. I can't say more, because beyond that I don't know what it means.

Damn! I was hoping you could explain what that means! wink

grin

- I'm waiting for an enlightening thread on information theory, and the meaning of the word 'entropy' in that context.

Originally Posted By: soilguy
This may be seen by many as evidence for God, but it's nothing more than God of the Gaps

Well said.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
I looked into information theory a few years ago, when a creationist I was speaking with started talking about information, and the laws of information, etc. It's eye-glazing stuff for me, overall, but I was surprised to find that there was more than one school of thought, and that definitions for terms between them were not interchangeable.

As far as I can tell, information theory was dragged into the whole creation/evolution - believer/atheist furor because some of the terms were similar to thermodynamic terms, and that genes are "information."


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
Page 33 of 35 1 2 31 32 33 34 35

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5