Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
“How do microbes acquire drug resistance?”

They either manipulate existing information like a computer program does or they a acquire new information from an outside source.

or through simple chemistry. (entropy)

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Just religious back peddling to encompass current scientific limits. No basis in proof... or is this the 'gospel of player1' ?

In mathematics, even "truth" must be accepted on faith. Once the existence of truth has been postulated, many other wonderful results are evident. But without this postulate, then 2+2 is meaningless. In addition, no matter how complex your mathematics or science, the vast infinity of knowledge lies outside your philosophy (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem).

Scientists may tend to be somewhat smug, but most understand their limitations, unlike religious fundamentalists.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are
dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Just religious back peddling to encompass current scientific limits. No basis in proof... or is this the 'gospel of player1' ?

I fail to see how this is 'religious back peddling'. If I were God (and I am not ), the big bang would seem like the perfect way to go about things. Why bother with all this clumsy business of making things in the traditional creationist manner - very inelegant. God is timeless (by virtue of being ominpotent), so he has no problem with the wait and knows exatly what is going to happen.

[MrBaggins]

Science is based on empirical evidence, for the most part.

You'd find it awfully hard convincing anyone that a number doesn't exist. Like 2... they are plain and inherent to us.

Also silly things like gravity... if you can see it... feel it. Repeat it. That makes it far easier to believe.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lincoln
“How do microbes acquire drug resistance?”

They either manipulate existing information like a computer program does or they a acquire new information from an outside source.

In other words, the virus evolve.

Thanks for proving the Theory of Evolution is correct.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Hello again everyone,

There seems to be a few basic problems here that need to be addressed. First there is the “speciation” argument. Hawaiian Wallabies and Australian Wallabies are both birds.

Bad start you got off to. They are marsupials. Mammals not birds. They speciated in any case. They became TWO diffenent KINDS.

That was Drako’s point. He and other rational people are looking for proof of a real change from one distinct animal to another.

Driopithicene apes became Australopithecus which eventually became us. That is changeing from one distinct type to another.

His point is still valid. It is speculation that asserts that it is possible for a catfish to turn into a cat, not evidence.

It is creationist nonesense. No one but a creationist has even made such a ridiculous remark. Hundreds of millions of years ago a fish that was not much like a catfish gradually evolved into an amphibian and then to a reptile and thence to a mammal like reptile and thence through over two hundred million years one of the descendents that was almost a cat gave birth to something that was just barely a cat.

Also the dog thing proves with several hundred years of experimentation that a wolf or dog remains in the same family and does not turn into another creature over time.

Only it does change into another creature over time. Wolves had over 50% more brain capacity than a dog. And a hundred years is not exactly the same as a hundred million years.

What is proved is Variation within a particular kind of animal not evolution form one kind to another. Speculation is needed to prove otherwise.

Actually fossils prove it. Not speculation.

Experimental evidence shows that Drako was correct here.

No experimental evidence shows him wrong. You are merely mistating things.

Of course the evolutionist will say that it simply takes more time. But in the mean time the prima facie evidence supports the view of Drako and the evolutionist must rely on speculation and subjective interpretation of fossils.

The evidence does not in the least support Drako or the Bible.

I see that no one has attempted to overthrow the information laws that I posted yet.

They were garbage. Most of it was mere assertions and not laws.

No, I did not use the theory of Claude Shannon here because he does not address the true nature of information contained in a biological organism. That is not a refutation of Shannon’s work. Werner Gitt on the other hand address information not only on a statistical level as did Shannon but also on the true higher levels which define specified coded information which is in reality contained in DNA. So I must prove this here, I suppose so here goes:

Its coded allright, because we choose to call it that. Which does not imply a coder.

In a tiny seed there exists all of the information necessary to make, regulate, maintain and reproduce a fully functioning organism. This is simply fact. It is the information contained in coded form in DNA that supplies all of the information for this miracle of life to take place. So let’s look on all five levels of information and see if DNA fits the definition.

Yes lets.

1. Statistics.

Nice but no meaning to the discussion.

2. Syntax.

Same.

3. Semantics.

So far you have an understanding of DNA.

4. Pragmatics.

Practical value to the lifeform anyway.

It needs no other value.

5. Apobetics.

Wrong. You were doing quite well. The purpose is to reproduce. There is no need to produce a specific life only a life that can also reproduce.

There is no intention. Simply chemistry.

Now about the question of the watchmaker analogy. Everyone who has objected to that analogy has used a circular argument to support their view.

No. I haven't and don't. Watches don't grow. Life does. Life self assembles. Watches don't. There is no circularity there.

The watches purpose is that of the user and the maker. There is no purpose to life except to create more life. It need not be the same life.

The fact that a living organism is self replicating and is affected by environment and other factors does not prove the inappropriateness of the analogy unless it is already assumed that evolution is a fact and it operates even before life exists.

Nonsense. Evolution has nothing to do with pre-life. It only effects life.

Of course that is the question of this thread so you are answering a question with a belief in evolution.

Evolution is a fact. The only question is the details. So far you have done nothing to make a point.

Also, the entire purpose of the analogy is to show the absurdity of a machine arising from the earth spontaneously. The fact that a biological machine is even more complicated than the analogy only strengthens the case of the creationist.

Machine are assembled they don't grow. There is rather a large difference between a carefully designed watch that needs an outside assembler and a self-assembling life.

You are simply saying its complex so there is a god. You are assuming a creator not showing one.

“How do microbes acquire drug resistance?”

They either manipulate existing information like a computer program does or they a acquire new information from an outside source.

Or they evolve it. By random changes in the DNA that occasionally make a change that improves their chances of survival. If you want to call that manipulation go ahead. Its close enough to what really happens to make a far better anology than the watch.

[Provost Harrison]

I don't want to have to go through this information argument again, I have discussed how data increases in organisms, something I have covered in explicit depths and means there is no foundation for your theory in rational thought Lincoln. There needs to be no meddling, simple base shifts to increase data, mutation and natural selection to do the rest of the work modifying existing genetic sequences.

The same thing with antibiotic resistance. Mutation is quite random. Most permutations are lethal. The very occasional one confers a significant benefit. That strain survives.

[mactbone]

You do realize that if you smahed up an airplane and put it all in a bag and shook it up an infinite amount of times, one of those time would produce a perfect replica of the original airplane. Probabilities always turn out true as long as you put a one in front of it. There is a one in an extemely large number, chance that I will get struck by lightning, which means that at some point in time, somewhere I will get struck by lightning.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Science is based on empirical evidence, for the most part.

You'd find it awfully hard convincing anyone that a number doesn't exist. Like 2... they are plain and inherent to us.

Also silly things like gravity... if you can see it... feel it. Repeat it. That makes it far easier to believe.

Gravity, as we know it, was "discovered" by Galileo and Newton. Before Galileo, everyone knew that heavy objects fell faster than lighter ones, and that the planets were held in orbit around the earth by God. Today, everyone accepts that the earth is round, but it wasn't always so.

Science has conclusively demonstrated that the Theory of Evolution is at least as true as the Theory of Gravity. There is a huge amount of empirical evidence of this fact, not to mention the predictive ability of the Theory (see my post above for examples).

Prediction is key to testing a Theory. Creationism does not make predictions. On the other hand, when Jack Horner went looking for dinosaur eggs, he referred to his paleogeology to find an ancient shoreline. He not only found dinosaur eggs, but baby dinosaurs, and entire nesting colonies.

(PS. Don't believe Creationists concerning the Bible either. They are generally as wrong about that subject as they are about biology.)

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Gravity, as we know it, was "discovered" by Galileo and Newton. Before Galileo, everyone knew that heavy objects fell faster than lighter ones, and that the planets were held in orbit around the earth by God. Today, everyone accepts that the earth is round, but it wasn't always so.

Now be careful, the gravitational force exerted on a body is proportional to it's mass, therefore the force per unit mass on a feather or a lead weight is the same, hence they fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Air resistance buggers that up though. There is more force between two massive objects than between two lighter objects.

Science has conclusively demonstrated that the Theory of Evolution is at least as true as the Theory of Gravity. There is a huge amount of empirical evidence of this fact, not to mention the predictive ability of the Theory (see my post above for examples).

Well it passes the major test when it is used as fact. Modern biological sciences use the underlying principles of evolution as fact, and it works to explain and answer problems.

Prediction is key to testing a Theory. Creationism does not make predictions. On the other hand, when Jack Horner went looking for dinosaur eggs, he referred to his paleogeology to find an ancient shoreline. He not only found dinosaur eggs, but baby dinosaurs, and entire nesting colonies.

(PS. Don't believe Creationists concerning the Bible either. They are generally as wrong about that subject as they are about biology.)

The principle of mutation, a fundamental key to Neodarwinian thinking, is used routinely. Altering DNA and thus a proteins expression or sequence is done routinely, sometimes using increased mutation rate through radiation and strong selection pressures, or in a more controlled manner, such as gene splicing and genetic engineering (insertion of novel DNA sequences, which may I add, is nothing that does not occur naturally)

[Caligastia]

Nothing exists. We all live in the Matrix.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Now be careful, the gravitational force exerted on a body is proportional to it's mass, therefore the force per unit mass on a feather or a lead weight is the same, hence they fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Air resistance buggers that up though. There is more force between two massive objects than between two lighter objects.

Seeing as you are agreeing with me, I will be careful from now on (when crossing the street?).

[Provost Harrison]

Sorry, be careful not to make errors. You know how pedantic these creationists are. You can write a beautiful defence of your stance, but you forgot to dot one i and cross one t and they will consider the whole theory to have collapsed and creationism to be the only truth

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I see that no one has attempted to overthrow the information laws that I posted yet.

I see there is no need, Lincoln. You have yet to establish your model as something viable. Hardly established at all, let alone being laws.

Scientific models aren't established by rhetorics.

Originally posted by Lincoln
“How do microbes acquire drug resistance?”

They either manipulate existing information like a computer program does or they a acquire new information from an outside source.

Neither of these case works. There is no existing information in drug resistence in these microbes, or else they would have been drug resistant all along. Since there are zillion kinds of drugs and new ones are made every day designed to target certain microbes, there is little water in the "existing information" department.

As for an outside source. Again, the appearance of new drugs means there has to be an origin of this new information.

Also, Th0mas posted a very interesting account of documented speciation which seems to decisively destroy creationist mumblejumble.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Seeing as you are agreeing with me, I will be careful from now on (when crossing the street?).

He wasn't agreeing with you. You implied that the belief that heavy objects fall faster than light ones was incorrect (isn't this what you meant?). It isn't incorrect, as PH pointed out. Heavy objects do (generally) fall faster than light ones because they are less affected by the air that they are passing through.

I think this is a perfect example of High School physics buggering up people's view of the world. Have you ever tried discussing circular motion with anyone who did physics at school?

[Urban Ranger]

Lincoln,

Just for your convenience, I have quoted my rebuttal to the wristwach analogy:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The fundamental flaw is civilised humans have the prior knowledge of wrist watches (that they are manufactured), while we have no such knowledge of organisms or this universe.

Ask an African Bushman about the wristwatch. Go ahead. See if he knows that there is a type of professions called watchmakers.

Here's the deal. Either show me where I have used circular reasoning, or admit that this so called analogy is broken.

I'll keep reminding you of this until you have chosen one or the other.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
He wasn't agreeing with you. You implied that the belief that heavy objects fall faster than light ones was incorrect (isn't this what you meant?). It isn't incorrect, as PH pointed out. Heavy objects do (generally) fall faster than light ones because they are less affected by the air that they are passing through.

Ah! Not necessarily. It depends on a lot of things such as the shapes of the objects, their density, medium they are falling through, and so on.

Indeed we need to be pedantic.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
He wasn't agreeing with you. You implied that the belief that heavy objects fall faster than light ones was incorrect (isn't this what you meant?). It isn't incorrect, as PH pointed out. Heavy objects do (generally) fall faster than light ones because they are less affected by the air that they are passing through.

I think this is a perfect example of High School physics buggering up people's view of the world. Have you ever tried discussing circular motion with anyone who did physics at school?

Aristotle was aware of air resistance and stated that, "the speed of fall is proportional to the weight, and inversely proportional to the density of the medium the body is falling through."

I was certainly hoping that even Creationists knew the basic arguments about motion, but then again, that may be a poor assumption!

[Lincoln]

Etheired,

Yes, I made a mistake. A wallaby is not a bird. Nevertheless the point remains the same. They are not an example of a distinct change from one animal to another like a mouse to a monkey or whatever. Draco was correct. Dogs and wolves prove the same thing. Speculation and subjective interpretation of fossils is not the same as hard evidence. Hundreds of years of dog breeding has proved variation within a kind not transformation from a dog to a cat. That is what he said was fact and it is fact. Speculation or hypotheses is not the same as empirical evidence.

“No one but a creationist has even made such a ridiculous remark”

No, it is not a ridiculous remark. It is ridiculous to assume that the present reality should bow to speculation.

“Hundreds of millions of years ago a fish that was not much like a catfish gradually evolved into an amphibian and then to a reptile and thence to a mammal like reptile and thence through over two hundred million years one of the descendents that was almost a cat gave birth to something that was just barely a cat.”

Do you believe everything you read or do you know this as a fact?

“Wolves had over 50% more brain capacity than a dog. And a hundred years is not exactly the same as a hundred million years.”

And of course you know exactly what went on a hundred million years ago. Again you prove my point. Wolves and dogs are variation within the same kind regardless of your speculation about what happened a hundred million years ago.

“Its coded allright, because we choose to call it that. Which does not imply a coder.”

No, its coded because it is a code. Maybe you should look up DNA code on a search engine. And please explain how the code originated without a “coder”.

“It needs no other value.”

Well good, we at least agree that the information in DNA at least exists to the pragmatic value. That eliminates Shannon from the discussion. The purpose or goal is obvious however. The seed does actually become a tree. What would you suggest the goal of a pear seed is if it is not to become a pear tree? The information within the seed is preprogrammed to become a tree. That is why a tree is the result. It will do what it is programmed to do.

“There is no intention. Simply chemistry.”

Please explain the origin of the code using “simple chemistry”.

“Life does. Life self assembles. Watches don't. There is no circularity there.”

You are using a circular argument because you assume that “life self assembles”.

“Nonsense. Evolution has nothing to do with pre-life. It only effects life.”

I am glad that you can see that. So now maybe you can explain how the code evolved?

“Evolution is a fact. The only question is the details.”

Another circular argument. Have you ever heard the expression “the devil is in the details”? In other words. Give me the details of how the code evolved.

“Machine are assembled they don't grow. There is rather a large difference between a carefully designed watch that needs an outside assembler and a self-assembling life.

You are simply saying its complex so there is a god. You are assuming a creator not showing one.”

More circular arguments, i.e., “self assembling life.” There is an intelligent mental source that does exist. I am showing that that force is applicable to the origin of the coded information contained in DNA.


Urban Ranger,

“You have yet to establish your model as something viable. Hardly established at all, let alone being laws.”

Then you should have no problem refuting the information laws that I posted. If they are not laws then expose them here.


“There is no existing information in drug resistence in these microbes, or else they would have been drug resistant all along. Since there are zillion kinds of drugs and new ones are made every day designed to target certain microbes, there is little water in the "existing information" department.”

There is a potential in most software programs to perform the unexpected but if you are correct and the original potential does not exist then that leaves us with option “B”.

“As for an outside source. Again, the appearance of new drugs means there has to be an origin of this new information.”

Yes, there must be an origin of the new information. That is not disputed.

[Jack_www]

I was going to post this in the other thread "Question for creationists", but seeing as this is more active then the latter I will post it here.

Let us briefly go over the scientific method. Make observations; then formulate a hypothesis to try to show what is true; then test the hypothesis with further observations and/or experiments and see if the predictions based on this hypothesis come true. Many who support life being created though spend most of their time trying to show the holes in the theory of evolution, instead of trying to formulate a model or hypothesis and try and test them. So in this post I am going to put a model or hypothesis how life was created, and if it was created what we would find.

First we would see that the Universe had a beginning. For a long time many scientists believed that the Universe did not have a beginning, but when evidence was uncovered that the Universe is expanding that this was wrong, and the Universe did indeed have a beginning. Recent observations that have been made show the Universe is extremely complex in nature. Various formations exist, that could not have formed by gravity alone. Thus great amount of energy was needed to organize the Universe, second law of thermodynamics. If someone created Universe, we can come up with a very simple explanation as to where this energy came form, a Creator. Also with the theory of relativity, the equation E=mc^2, energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared, this can be reversed as has been done in particle accelerators that energy can be used to form matter. Thus showing how the Creator of Universe could transform His energy into the matter that is in the Universe today.

The creation model, there is no problem with the fact that the earth is billions of years old. The term used in Genesis that is translated “day” can represent long periods of time. Also the explosions of life we see in the fossil record fit very nicely with this model, if they were created they would appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no links to previous forms of life. They would reproduce according to their “kinds” or biological families. Thus great variety of life is possible, and limited changes in a species is also possible, but they cannot turn into anther “kind” of life. Also the changes we have seen in recent times showing life changes would not go against this model, since it can explain it too. Insects, such as flies and beetles, remained unchanged since there appeared in the fossil record millions of years ago. This can be said for the different forms of life we see in the world today, since they appeared in the fossil record, they have changed very little. Although this model that I came up with is not the best and needs to be tested more, and polished up, but I think that creation model does have merit, and evidence is there to support it. They only problem is that many scientist who believe life was created have not come up with a model which they can use to make predictions as to what we will find and see if they come true.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lincoln

They are not an example of a distinct change from one animal to another like a mouse to a monkey or whatever. Draco was correct. Dogs and wolves prove the same thing. Speculation and subjective interpretation of fossils is not the same as hard evidence. Hundreds of years of dog breeding has proved variation within a kind not transformation from a dog to a cat. That is what he said was fact and it is fact. Speculation or hypotheses is not the same as empirical evidence.

The number one rule of evolution is the extinction of species. Entire ecosystems have disappeared.

By the way, creation of species is very common in botany, and is observed on a regular basis, especially in jungle ecosystems.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Draco was correct. Dogs and wolves prove the same thing. Speculation and subjective interpretation of fossils is not the same as hard evidence.

I like that loaded phrase "speculation and subjective" but it has no meaning its a just an attempt to hide the reality.

Fossils are hard evidence. It is not mere speculation to say that Australopithicus had an ape ancestor and a human descendent. The evidence is clear. OBJECTIVE interpretation of the fossils show it.

Hundreds of years of dog breeding has proved variation within a kind not transformation from a dog to a cat. That is what he said was fact and it is fact. Speculation or hypotheses is not the same as empirical evidence.

A meaningless fact that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. No one has ever even tried to undo millions of years of evolution in a couple of centuries so it meaningless to pretend that cats have any business in that. Speculation is not involved. Speculation is when someone says 'we don't know everything therefor god exists'. Hypothesis is when someone makes an initial attempt at understanding. Evolution is long past that. Its a solid theory that has stood the test of time.

“No one but a creationist has even made such a ridiculous remark”

No, it is not a ridiculous remark. It is ridiculous to assume that speculation should bow to the present reality.

It was ridiculous and remains so. Speculation is not involved. Repeating it ad infinitum will not make it so. The present reality is that there are megatons of fossils that show clearly that species have changed over time. Present reality is a mere slice in the history of the Universe and your narrow view of history is blocking this from your sight.

Do you believe everything you read or do you know this as a fact?

If I believed everything I read I would be a Creationist. Or a blitering idiot. I know that for a fact. A much harder fact than has ever supported any form of creationism. It is not perfectly known in all the details. Nevertheless there are fossils representing a suficient number of steps to show that it is true. To deny it is to say we can never know anything at all without knowing everything.

And of course you know exactly what went on a hundred million years ago.

Never claimed exactitude. I leave that to those that believe Geneisis.

Again you prove my point. Wolves and dogs are variation within the same kind regardless of your speculation about what happened a hundred million years ago.

Not speculation. Well reasoned deductions based on large amounts of evidence. I proved MY point not yours.

Ever heard of flying squirell. Its a transition between a flyer and ground animal. Thats changing kind even by your standards.

No, its coded because it is a code. Maybe you should look up DNA code on a search engine. And please explain how the code originated without a “coder”.

It evolved. Over time. No coder was ever needed.

Well good, we at least agree that the information in DNA at least exists to the pragmatic value. That eliminates Shannon from the discussion. The purpose or goal is obvious however.

Yes it is. Survival long enough to reproduce. Without which there would be nothing to argue about or by.

The seed does actually become a tree.

Or a bush or vine or whatever else it happens to be. But it is usually something different from the parent. Similar but not the same. Can't be the same unless its a clone.

What would you suggest the goal of a pear seed is if it is not to become a pear tree?

To reproduce. However it can. That usually entails becomeing a tree but a bush will do if the conditions are poor.

The information within the seed is preprogrammed to become a tree. That is why a tree is the result. It will do what it is programmed to do.

It evolved that way. It wasn't programmed. It will do what it evolved to do. Playing word games isn't going to get your anywhere with me. Try giveing evidence. I am waiting to see evidence for creation. I have never seen any. Not once.

I have seen lots of evidence for evolution.

Please explain the origin of the code using “simple chemistry”.

It evolved. Like computer code it has no meaning of its own. Its simply a case of one chemical fitting another. It is unlikely that life started as DNA so you might as well give up on this route because it came AFTER life got started.

You are using a circular argument because you assume that “life self assembles”.

I am assuming nothing. We can see the chemistry in action. Life self assembles. It is mere chemistry and there is no magic involved.

You are parroting. Creationist have started parroting Darwinists in a desperate attempt to deflect reason. They got tired of having their blatently circular claims that the Bible is gods word because the Bible says it is and now they call linear logic cirular just to cover up.

The other new ploy is to call Darwinists close minded because they keep asking for evidence.

The latest is to refuse to support their postition and attack the real evidence as if they were the O. J. Simpson legal team. There are web sites telling Bible thumpers not to mention the Bible and not ever try to prove anything. I see you have got the message.

Show evidence.

I am glad that you can see that. So now maybe you can explain how the code evolved?

Maybe you can explain how god came into existence?

No. I didn't think so. I am not going to explain the DNA code since life didn't start from DNA.

Another circular argument. Have you ever heard the expression “the devil is in the details”? In other words. Give me the details of how the code evolved.

Give the details of how god came into existence without a god to create it. I did nothing circular. You are playing word games.

More circular arguments, i.e., “self assembling life.”

More bogus claims of circularity. Show evidence for your postion.

There is an intelligent mental source that does exist. I am showing that that force is applicable to the origin of the coded information contained in DNA.

No you are handwaving.

There never was a need for the code to be what it is. There is only a need for it to work. It may have worked differently in the past. Now that is speculation. Try to learn the difference between speculation and well reasoned deduction. You don't want speculation yet you have demanded that I do so four or five times here.

Then you should have no problem refuting the information laws that I posted. If they are not laws then expose them here.

They weren't laws. They were bald assertions. And then some logic was performed on these usupported premises.

There is a potential in most software programs to perform the unexpected but if you are correct and the original potential does not exist then that leaves us with option “B”.

Or C or D or E or anything else you tried to hide with a false dicotomy.

Yes, there must be an origin of the new information. That is not disputed.

The origin was from a random change that is tested against the environment. If it fails it doesn't reproduce. If it succeeds it takes over. The information comes from the natural selection by the environment. Or you could call it unatural in the case of synthetic antibiotics.

By the way SOME of the resistance IS gained from other bacteria. Bacteria can exchange DNA accross species. Most antibiotics were found or are variants of found antibiotics. The DNA that gives resistance in many cases evolved over long periods of time in bacteria that don't infect humans. Later when we started using antibiotics such as penicilan these traits crossed species. They probably had crossed before but had no survival value till penicilin was discovered.

The catch here for you is that we also modify penicilan and the traits that the bacteria gained from non-infecting bacteria didn't quite do the trick against the modified forms. Yet the bacteria have since adapted to the modified versions as well. THAT was evolution. Random changes and selection by the environment.

[Jack_www]

I am pretty sure that Ethelred is going to analize my post I made above line by line very soon. I have no problems with that. Many times you cannot see your own misstakes untill someone has pointed them out to you. The thing that many who support Evolution have said is that many who are creationists, and those who support the recent Intelligent Design Theory have never made a real attempt to come up with a hypothesis that can be tested under scientific method. All they do is spend most of there time trying to prove the threoy of evolution wrong, and ignore the fact that they have not try and show how the evidence supports their claims.

Those who support evolution have spent about 100 years coming up with hypothesis and testing them and refining them. While durring this time many who support idea that the Universe and life was created have attacked the theory of evolution and not done much in the area of collecting proof for the creation model. I think that if those who support the idea the life was created did this, we could make major progess in this debate, since this is the very thing that those who support the theory of evolution have been asking for all along. Instead of attacking one anther, if we had hypothesis for creation model, parties on both sides of debate could work togather, instead of against each other.

[Seeker]

"While durring this time many who support idea that the Universe and life was created have attacked the theory of evolution and not done much in the area of collecting proof forcreation model. I think that if those who support the idea the life was created did this, we could make major progess in this debate."

I can't imagine how they would go about doing that. How could you collect and present positive proof of 'Creation' within the framework of the scientific method, in our world, not theoretically?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
I think it´s bad of Firaxis not to have flat maps in the game. For as you all know THE EARTH IS FLAT! The notion that the earth is a round ball that circulates the sun is a ridiculous notion. Don´t believe this hoax, the pictures from space is a fraud. There is no conclusive evidence that the earth is round!!

ROOOOOOFLMAAAAAAAAO!!!!

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I was going to post this in the other thread "Question for creationists", but seeing as this is more active then the latter I will post it here.

Let us briefly go over the scientific method. Make observations; then formulate a hypothesis to try to show what is true; then test the hypothesis with further observations and/or experiments and see if the predictions based on this hypothesis come true. Many who support life being created though spend most of their time trying to show the holes in the theory of evolution, instead of trying to formulate a model or hypothesis and try and test them. So in this post I am going to put a model or hypothesis how life was created, and if it was created what we would find.

First we would see that the Universe had a beginning. For a long time many scientists believed that the Universe did not have a beginning, but when evidence was uncovered that the Universe is expanding that this was wrong, and the Universe did indeed have a beginning. Recent observations that have been made show the Universe is extremely complex in nature. Various formations exist, that could not have formed by gravity alone. Thus great amount of energy was needed to organize the Universe, second law of thermodynamics. If someone created Universe, we can come up with a very simple explanation as to where this energy came form, a Creator. Also with the theory of relativity, the equation E=mc^2, energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared, this can be reversed as has been done in particle accelerators that energy can be used to form matter. Thus showing how the Creator of Universe could transform His energy into the matter that is in the Universe today.

Sadly... several of your points are wrong, and your argument founders.

A demonstratable phenominum exists in science, called a virtual particle; actually it occurs in pairs (an anti- particle and particle pair, which hence do not violate any law of conservation.) At the origin of the universe two of these incompatible vp's existed simultaneously at a singularity, hence releasing the contained energy. As for the complexity of the universe... how does this REQUIRE design? How does gravity, entropy, quantum theory and fractal form not explain structures in the universe?

The creation model, there is no problem with the fact that the earth is billions of years old. The term used in Genesis that is translated “day” can represent long periods of time. *snip*

Religious backtracking, as always.

Creationists say that the world was created with intelligent design, and that God designed man, not evolution... 6000 or 10000 years ago. There was this big flood that formed all of these fossles

If God didn't create man right then...6-10K years ago, then there wasn't intelligent design as per the bible, rather evolution.

Now... the flood/ark concept is just one HUGE scientific joke. How did Noah or anyone of that time period build it. How did they estimate how big it would need to be, how to structure it, provide all the diverse climates and ecologies required to sustain the animals, how did they get the animals to the ship (like penguins, when it is clear that they were unaware of where penguins came from,) how did they get all the pairs (or 7's its not clear which) to breed successfully in captivity... why isn't there any record in ice cores or tree rings.

The list just goes on and on.

[MrBaggins]

can a creationist define what a "KIND" of animal actually is?

[MrBaggins]

Lincoln.

A quantum state existed that allowed the creation of DNA or RNA. We are living on a recursive subset of that Quantum state.

Prove otherwise.

[Seeker]

"At the origin of the universe two of these incompatible vp's existed simultaneously at a singularity, hence releasing the contained energy. As for the complexity of the universe... "

I thought the idea was a scalar field creating a 'false vacuum'...?

[MrBaggins]

There are several theories. Many rely on incompatible vps at a singularity.

Its very difficult to study the process...

If we were ever able to reproduce the exact condition, you can image the result