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

[mactbone]

Except that there is no proof for Creationists. We might as well throw away History books that deal with the time period covered by The Bible if we're going to teach Creationism. You also open up the doors to EVERY relegion, meaning there would have to be one class to deal with every idea of how the Universe was created and how man came to be. We'd hear about Animixander's everchanging world, Zeno's unchanging universe, etc. etc.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln

How does “autocatalysis” and a random order of RNA produce a code along with a translation process?

How did the “the translation mechanism” come into existence?

You suggesting the self organization of tRNA. How did about 20 of them form themselves to match both the coded instructions in DNA and the appropriate units of the ribosomes?

Don't you remember what you was 'too deep for you'.

According to QT, complex structures can form if they are necessary for a later structure. The complexity or probability is irrelevent.

Structures need to be formed to carry information, so they were.

What is, was.

[Lincoln]

test

[Lincoln]

Oh good it finally worked. Who said I was computer illiterate

Anyway that is a tRNA molecule for those not familiar with what we are talking about. Notice the unique folding that exposes the correct order of "letters" so that translation is possible. These little fellas transfer the information from DNA to the ribosomes. Maybe I can get a picture of one of those for further illustration.

[Lincoln]

Here is the basic translation process. I could not find a detailed picture of a ribosome.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Whilst I don't oppose the idea of the Theory of Evolution, I do agree in part that today a lot of what we generally accept as "public scientific knowledge" is actually taken on faith.

For example, the scientists tell us something about gender differences in humans - say, that women have a higher pain threshold than men or something. We shrug and say "okay" or if it's really interesting, we tell the rest of our friends about it. But what proof do we have? We must rely on the alleged findings of a small and by no means comprehensive fraction of society.

In the end, we come to trust scientific theories in pretty much the same blind faith that people once trusted religions.

I'm not complaining about this - for a start, I see a few very important differences (people don't often come to violent conflicts because of scientific differences, whereas religion sometimes causes them) - but I also think it's an interesting thing to keep in mind.

[MrBaggins]

True to a certain degree but theres a big difference. With science it has to be a repeatable experiment, and is subject to disproval.

If a theory can get through a long time without being disproved by a repeatable experiment, then it is more highly valued.

Of course, this doesn't mean that theories aren't superceded by other further reaching theories... thats less common, however. Generally speaking it happens when a macroscience explains something that someone thought was a discrete science.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Whilst I don't oppose the idea of the Theory of Evolution, I do agree in part that today a lot of what we generally accept as "public scientific knowledge" is actually taken on faith

(etc.)

True dat, but while the general public has to take it on faith, bad science gets caught eventually (there's not a single, monolithic science establishment). Numerous examples of this. Best thing is healthy level skepticism until new science has had a while to be tested.

How are you supposed to argue with somebody who says that the world works such-and-such a way because God told him so?

[MrBaggins]

Krazy>

Because God also told him there was this guy called Noah.. who deforested the land for miles around, to build this boat, and he managed to get 2 of every creature, plant and bug and managed to sustain and breed them on this boat.........

There's another word for that... delusional

[Lincoln]

Okay I promise this is the last picture. This is one of the subunits of a ribosome. The blue and red thingies are tRNA that fit together with the structure of the ribizome as well as the corrosponding "letters". There is another subunit also as illustrated above.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Whilst I don't oppose the idea of the Theory of Evolution, I do agree in part that today a lot of what we generally accept as "public scientific knowledge" is actually taken on faith.

Actually, that is not exactly true. You are right that many people accept science on authority, but that is not what science is about. Science can be verified.

Aristotle said the speed of falling objects was proportional to their weight. Galileo said they fell at the same rate. Galileo's theory can be verified, Aristotle's falsified.

Fossil evidence can also be verified. There are geological strata; there are fossils; and certain fossils only show in certain strata. I myself have verified this, as have countless others.

People once refused to believe in the atom. The atom's existence could only be shown by inference. But the physicists built the atom bomb. Quite a dramatic confirmation.

There are thousands of experiments that do not require elaborate equipment to perform. But every experimental test of evolution has only strengthened the theory.

Humans are already manipulating genes. Like the atomic bomb, genetics will change everything so there will be no doubting. Evolve or become extinct.

[MosesPresley]

WOW. I was going to go into depth on one or two things, but this thread is all over the place, so I think my little thoughts would just be lost in the din.

Early in the thread Draco aka Se7eN said he wanted some fossil evidence or proof. Click this link, dude:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/...hyo/index.html

It is a link to a page concerning ichthyosaurs. Ichthyosaurs are a study in miniature on evolution. The fossil record practically speaks for itself. There is no need to worry, you don't have to be a graduate student to understand the concepts and the writing on this site. It is fairly light stuff.

If you find this interesting, maybe you will be willing to research some more fossil evidence on your own. It is fascinating.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Recent observations that have been made show the Universe is extremely complex in nature.

The complexity of Chaos not the complexity of design. The Universe is highly Chaotic.

Various formations exist, that could not have formed by gravity alone.

Sure there is electomatic effects as well. Ions moveing through magnetic fields can generate their own magnetic fields. The is also light pressure. Gravity is not the only thing available as an organizing force.

Thus great amount of energy was needed to organize the Universe, second law of thermodynamics.

All indications are that there was a greath amount of energy if not in the first instant than later. Inflation theory shows where it MIGHT have come from. Inflation theory however is not doing so well at the moment. Its not gone completely though.

If someone created Universe, we can come up with a very simple explanation as to where this energy came form, a Creator.

That isn't simple its simplistic. It ignores the need for the Creator to have energy source.

Anything you can say the Universe must have also applies to 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.

Where did HIS energy come from? This is just evading the question of the source of the energy.

'We don't know therefor a unknown magical god did it.'

The vast majority of Creationist claims boil down to that.

Lately they have been hiding the additional thought that they think the creator is Jehovah. Duplicity thy name is ICR.

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.

The order of creation in Genesis is just plain wrong.

Insects, such as flies and beetles, remained unchanged since there appeared in the fossil record millions of years ago.

Actually they HAVE changed. Just not much. Insects of the ancient past are different species mostly than those of today.

Where are those gigantic insects of the Permian for instance. Extinct thats where. Not exactly perfect creations were they?

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.

Man has changed. So have most of the others. Most went extinct. Ninety-nine percent of them. Look at the difference between modern birds and Archeopterix.

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.

Actually they DO have model. The one in the Bible and it fails the tests. Even if you ignore the time frame the order of creation is wrong.

[Ethelred]

Jack that Document you attached was from twelve years ago. Its obsolete.

For instance.

the strongest piece of evidence for the big bang has turned on it. Matter is not found to be spread out uniformly. Correspondingly, the leftover radiation from the big bang should be inhomogeneous. Unfortunately, the results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite, recently launched to investigate the microwave background, has revealed that this wash of radiation is relentlessly uniform. So it conflicts with the theoretical big bang predictions.

Thats not true. It may have been true with the earliest results but the final results of COBE show variations. I think it was one part in 10,000. In fact some thought there was too much variation to fit theory.

He has some good points there but some of them are no longer valid. Twelve years is a long time in science these days. Not quite as long as internet time but a lot longer than when Darwin was born.

[KrazyHorse]

Yeah. Large-scale inhomogenities have been verified in the last little while. Remember discussing it with fellow student few years back.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
There is very little objectivity involved.

Thats nice. Bogus but a nice dodge. You clearly don't know how things are done.

That is why a certain chain of events that “proved” the evolution of dinosaurs turned out to be simply the same family in different stages of development from child to adolescent to adult as well as the different bone structures of the male and female. This was exposed after about 40 years. The same can be said about the Piltdown man and the Neanderthal man as well as hundreds of similar examples.

Nice touch lumping a deliberate fraud with real fossils. Neanderthal man has over 200 skeletons backing it. Many are complete. Its a real member of Genus Homo. There is still a question of wether it is Sapiens or Neanderthalensis but it looks to be seperate species. Showing by the way that speciation occurs.

People find bones and then everyone trues to decide what it all means. There is disputes constantly about the significance of fossils especially in light of past errors in interpretation.

Yes thats called science and it is done as objectively as it can be done. Lots of people look at the evidence and little is considered solid on the say so of one person. That is what makes it objective. That it is not perfect is not the same as subjective.

Speculation is also when someone says “we don’t know everything therefore evolution did it.” Micro evolution or the process of natural selection is a solid theory. Changes from one distinct kind of animal to another is speculation based upon subject interpretation of evidence.

Based on LOTS of evidence and OBJECTIVE deductions based on that evidence. You are playing word games again.

Nor will repeating “evolution is a fact” make it so. Present reality and present known laws are the basis of science. Theories and hypotheses and speculation precede from there.

E=MC^2 is a theory. The Bomb still blows up. Same for Evolution. The model is theory but the evidence still shows change. The only question is the details of the causes of the change.

Forgive me but that is kind of funny. Have you been to a public school lately?

No. What has that do with the price of peyote in Peru? I have read Genesis. If I believed it I would be Creationist. So I clearly don't believe everthing I read which was was the vile calumney you heaped upon me.

Ever heard of a pollywog? It turns into a frog eventually. Flying squirrels or flying fish or swimming ducks or jumping grasshoppers are all apart of nature. That does not prove any transition from kind to kind.

See how creationists evade. Ask for a transition and get shown one and they call it something else everytime.

Please prove that the laws I posted are not valid. They require a “coder”. If you can offer proof to the contrary then I will withdraw my assertion.

Another post will cover that. Its garbage. Lots of false premises masquerading as law.

That is obvious. But it just so happens to make another tree each time. You cannot escape that.

You cannot escape the fact that the tree is different and at one time the earth had no trees. They evolved from something that was not a tree.

I am still waiting for evidence instead of obfuscation. I won't hold my breath so you can give up hoping that I will die instead of ask again.

Yes there is variation built into the instructions that enable the tree to adapt

There is variation inherent in sexual reproduction and errors in the copying process.

But that does not negate the goal of becoming a pear tree as opposed to an apple tree or whatever. Some seeds do not grow at all and some die but the goal is the same. They reproduce after their kind.

They reproduce something that is not quite the same. The changes can only accumulate over time. Eventually it will become something that is different from a pear tree just as the pear tree is different from its ancient non-flowering ancestors.

I have seen lots of evidence for evolution.

I am giving you evidence for creation here.

No you aren't. You haven't given one single bit of evidence.

And you are using circular reasoning again. “It evolved that way” is not an answer it is a statement of belief on your part. I asked a simple question. Please show how using chemical laws the DNA code can evolve?

You sure don't know what a circle is do you?

DNA is not always copied exactly. Many of the changes are NOT fatal. Only some are. The non-fatal changes accumulate. That is evolution. Don't pretend I didn't just show you how unless you can prove that change either doesn't happen or doesn't accumulate.

A computer code does have meaning when it performs a function that was the goal of the programmer. And it does have meaning when it contains useful information that was put there by the intelligent source that created it (a human being).

Which is true for computer program. DNA is not a computer program and no one can point to the source code to show a designer.

And saying “it evolved” is another statement of faith. You say that DNA came after life got started.

Yes I do. It is not certain but it is likely. Don't mistake a tentative guess at how things might have worked as faith. I don't hold it despite evidence which is what you are doing.

Please show a life form that exists today that does not contain DNA or RNA (which also contains coded information).

Oh dear you just changed your definition. I will stick to your intial claims.

HIV is life without DNA.

RNA is capable of copying itself.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01n.html

And even if “life” did start without DNA it certainly does contain it now. Please show how it evolved if you can without using the laws that I posted.

The fraud you posted as a law is not involved nor would it matter if I used part of it. I am not constrained by your feeble attempts to limit my options.

I allready showed how DNA evolves. DNA is only slightly different from RNA. The change is concievable. There is no possible proof for something that happened over 3.8 billion years ago.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of god.

Unless you can show that evidence should be there as is the case for the Flood. There is no evidence of the Biblical Flood yet there should be. There is no reason to expect that we will ever find evidence for how life started on Earth. The best we can ever hope for is to understand how it might of happened.

Good, then show how chemistry makes the coded information contained in DNA. That should be easy.

Did that allready. It was easy.

I did not see their web sites. Sorry.

Nevertheless you are using the techiniques promalgated there. Wether you have invented them independently or not they are still merely attempts to obfuscate.

You continue saying in effect that evolution did it. You use that assertion to “prove” that evolution did it.

Actually I don't. You just claim I do. Its not quite the same as my actually doing it.

If you have proof that the DNA code and the information within it evolved then show it here.

Allready did show that it evolves. Thats enough to show that evolution can occur.

I have never claimed to know how life started. You are the one claiming that. I am waiting for evidence. Please try to show some.

You cannot begin with a statement of belief and circle around to that same statement. You believe in evolution as the creator of life I believe in God as the creator.

You are mistaken. I KNOW that evolution occurs right now. I have megatons of evidence that it has occured over time. I never claimed that evolution created life. Indeed I clearly said that evolution cannot start untill life begins. How life began is another question entirely. The circularity has been all yours.

I am trying to show that the coded information that is in life must have originated from an intelligent mental source. You say in response, “evolution did it”. Please show how that happens.

You are trying to plead that it must have occured via a creator because you can't concieve of any other way. I am showing other way it might have occured. There is no faith involved except for the idea that an answer may be found some day. You are merely insisting a creator is the answer. Its not an answer for the creator needs a creator.

Everything you have said requires a creator for life inevitably shows that a creator is needed for the creator. That is the heart the circularity of your arguement.

Yes, a lot of things may have been different but reality today is that life is based upon the coded instructions contained in DNA. Like you said. The other alternative is speculation.

Yes it is speculation. Except that life is sometimes encoded in RNA not DNA and RNA is capable of more than mere encoding. It can and does do some things that proteins do.

I do not question the process of natural selection.

That is exactly what you did when you defended Draco.

But you are not answering the question of the origin of information. If truly new information is added then it would indicate the further intervention of an intelligent mental source.

It does no such thing. Truly new information was added. The shaper of the information was the environment. There was no need for an inteligence.

But in studying the potential of existing information such as is used in the immune system I would hesitate to assume that there is any need for that speculation.

I didn't speculate there. It was all factual. Bacteria have adapted preexisting DNA to fit new human fashioned molecules. Thats a fact. Either the creator deliberatly acted to kill humans by changeing the DNA of the bacteria or it happened by the purely natural processed that are well understood.

So does your creator just like killing people or are you willing to finally see the obvious reality that the bacteria have evolved to fit the new environment?

Adaption is provided for in the initial instructions.

Nonsense. The change was due to random copying errors or possibly due to chemicly enduced mutations. The changes were inherently fairly random either way.

Information which already exists in other bacteria and is combined with other information is like two software programs interacting. There is usually no need to speculate that there is another source.

Not combined with other information. Random changes that were selected by environmental pressures.

If there is no need to speculate about a source why are you doing so? I don't see the need myself but you clearly are saying an inteligent source is needed. I see the enviroment as the clear shaper in this case.

[Urban Ranger]

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

You're sounding like a broken record here. Let me remind you that the burden of proof is on you. You can post anything you feel like, but without evidence backing you up it remains in the realm of rhetorics.

Originally posted by Lincoln
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”.

Software doing unexpected things are called "bugs", which are unrelated to microbes that cause disease. If you are contenting that genetic information in organisms perform imperfectly, congratulations, you are supporting evolution.

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

The catch, of course, is said origin must be able to be shown scientifically. That means that it can be oberved repeatedly, analysed, and otherwise studied systemetically.

I am still waiting for your reply to my refutation of the "Watchmaker analogy."

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Seeker
I thought the idea was a scalar field creating a 'false vacuum'...?

The scalar field is the Higgs field. At high energies, like the Big Bang, the potential in which it is sitting looks completely symmetric. But as you decrease in energy, you notice that there is a little bump right in the bottom (a bit like the bump at the bottom of a wine bottle).

As the energy gets lower, eventually the Higgs field can't get over the bump anymore, and the symmetry of the potential is broken. I then lies off to one side (so to speak) and it is its displacement from the middle which provides mass to the force carriers of the electroweak interaction.

There is a problem with all this. The Higgs field itself contributes to the Cosmological Constant. Now we know that the Cosmological constant is tiny from satellite experiments (I forget the exact limit), but the contribution from the Higgs boson in the universe is staggeringly huge. Major inconsistency!

I am sure there is a good explanation for this (Nobel prize anyone?) but we don't have one yet

[Ethelred]

I will accept the idea of the Higgs field when I see a reason in the form of experimental evidence. So far its a lot of numbers in search of a question. Interesting but there are a lot of interesting ideas in physics that long on unfinished math and short of evidence. The problem is that the evidence requires ever higher energies.

Maybe if I could understand the math I would less dubious on this. I used to think that electrons really did orbit the nucleus and the probabilistic model was just math. Now I know better.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I hope you can all get along without me. It is way past my bed time. Maybe I can catch up with this thread tomorrow. In the mean time perhaps there is someone here who can refute the following information laws (as it exists in all 5 levels). DNA contains all 5 levels of information.

I promised I would get to this.

There can be no information without a code.

Premise. Or rather he is defining information as code. Not a law.

Any code is the result of a free and deliberate convention.

No. This is dubious premise as there is no reason to claim a need of 'deliberate convention'. Perhaps this why he insisted on calling information code. Information can come from purely chaotic sources and the only code is the language we write about it in. There is information in the emisions of an accretion disk around a black hole. There is no code though.

There can be no information without a sender.

Utterly false unless you consider the matter swirling into a black hole to be a sender. Its a source anyway. The word 'sender' instead of source is clearly used to imply an intellect were there is no need to a consider an intelect. This a sign that someone has an axe to grind.

Any given chain of information points to a mental source.

So what is mental source in an accretions disk? This is VERY bad logic. Bad premises can only lead to the a correct answer by accident and this isn't correct even by accident.

There can be no information without volition (will).

Same again. Very poor thinking.

There can be no information unless all five hierarchical levels are involved:

Utterly and completely false. False conclusion based on false premises.

statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [result, purpose or goal].

There is no need for a goal either known or unknown. The rest there is mere obfuscation to had the faulty premises and total lack of logic.

Information cannot originate in statistical processes.

False. It does so. The destruction of electron postitron pairs in an accretion disk gives us information about the disk. Such destruction is purely statistical in nature and cannot be otherwise due to the inherently random nature of the events.

These seven theorems can also be formulated as impossibility therorems:

And a apple can be called a truck but it will only confuse things.

It is impossible to set up, store, or transmit information without using a code.

False. Information is transmited without code throughout the universe.

It is impossible to have a code apart from a free and deliberate convention.

Covered this bogus assertion allready here.

It is impossible that information can exist without having had a mental source.

Covered allready. You know it still looks as wrong as it did the first time.

It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily by a free will.

Utter and complete rubbish completely without foundation in the universe.

These aren't laws they are signs of a confused mind.

It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchical levels statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

Well that is nice. It doesn't even follow from the many false premises. Its amazing the damage a need to force fit religious beliefs can do to a trained mind.

It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes.

Covered.

This stuff reeks. Its really bad thinking. Bad premises that are clearly and obviously false. Conclusions that don't even come from the false premises.

Well Lincoln I looked at it. Its rubbish just like it was when I looked at the first time yesterday.

Now looking at the source.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home...ios/w_gitt.asp

Werner Gitt published that nonsense in the Creationist press. It wasn't peer reviewed of course as creationist press never is. Not even by other Creationists.

While Dr Gitt is a real scientist there is no way that Dr. Gitt would ever try publishing such utter garbage in any peer reviewed journal. Interesting how every publication sited is a creationist journal. Never one peer reviewed by biologists or mathematicians that actually understand information theory.

[Lincoln]

Etheired,

“Neanderthal man has over 200 skeletons backing it. Many are complete. It’s a real member of Genus Homo. There is still a question of wether it is Sapiens or Neanderthalensis but it looks to be separate species. Showing by the way that speciation occurs.”

Like I said, speculation and no evidence of one kind turning into another, And yes the record is full of fraud and incorrect interpretations.

“The model is theory but the evidence still shows change. The only question is the details of the causes of the change.”

Like, I said; Please give the details. And you have not even solved the problem of the evolution of DNA so why do you persist on a theory which has no foundation?

“You cannot escape the fact that the tree is different and at one time the earth had no trees. They evolved from something that was not a tree.”

I can make speculative statements as well as yours, i.e., No, trees were created. Repeating your mantra that “evolution did it” really does not make it a fact. You seem to be caught up in a web of circular reasoning.

“Yes I do. It is not certain but it is likely. Don't mistake a tentative guess at how things might have worked as faith. I don't hold it despite evidence which is what you are doing.”

At least you now admit that you are guessing. Call your guess whatever you want. It is still speculation.

“I already showed how DNA evolves. DNA is only slightly different from RNA. The change is concievable. There is no possible proof for something that happened over 3.8 billion years ago.”

I guess I missed that explanation. If you have figured it out then you should be able to answer the questions I posed to Provost Harrison. And you are right. You do not have any proof of what happened 3 billion years ago. Just your guess.

“I never claimed that evolution created life. Indeed I clearly said that evolution cannot start untill life begins. How life began is another question entirely.”

Then what are we arguing about – micro evolution are macro evolution? Micro evolution is a fact. Macro evolution is speculation.


“Everything you have said requires a creator for life inevitably shows that a creator is needed for the creator. That is the heart the circularity of your arguement.”

And your argument inevitably leads to the evolution or creation of matter. So we both end up with a mystery. Should that stop the progress of science because certain things will never be known?

“Yes it is speculation. Except that life is sometimes encoded in RNA not DNA and RNA is capable of more than mere encoding. It can and does do some things that proteins do.”

Then you should be able to answer the questions that I asked PH. You should at least have a basis for your speculation. Why not begin by answering those questions?

“That is exactly what you did when you defended Draco.”

No, I did not. He asserted that there is no known example of one kind of animal turning into another distinct kind. That is what I affirmed. Micro evolution is a fact but that should not be confused with the speculation that pretends that we all evolved from bacteria.

“are you willing to finally see the obvious reality that the bacteria have evolved to fit the new environment?”

I never questioned that.

“No. This is dubious premise as there is no reason to claim a need of 'deliberate convention'. Perhaps this why he insisted on calling information code. Information can come from purely chaotic sources and the only code is the language we write about it in. There is information in the emisions of an accretion disk around a black hole. There is no code though.”

This and the entirety of the rest of your post is irrelevant. You are describing non coded “information” that exists in nature. We are talking about apples and oranges here. There is a big difference between specifically ordered CODED instructions that must exist beyond the statistical level and so called information that exists in inanimate material. You should read the thread where I began to post so that I do not have to repeat myself. I think I entered this discussion about page 8. Anyway, here are a few more of statements and my answers:

“Utterly false unless you consider the matter swirling into a black hole to be a sender. It’s a source anyway. The word 'sender' instead of source is clearly used to imply an intellect were there is no need to a consider an intelect. This a sign that someone has an axe to grind.”

Irrelevant. You are using a definition of information that does not apply to that which is in coded form and occupies levels beyond statistical as we agreed earlier.


“Utterly and completely false. False conclusion based on false premises.”

Again we are talking about two different things.

“Werner Gitt published that nonsense in the Creationist press. It wasn't peer reviewed of course as creationist press never is. Not even by other Creationists.”

Why don’t you review it here then without misrepresenting or misunderstanding exactly the nature of coded information such as is contained in DNA? You have not answered even one question on the origin of information as it really exists in DNA. You have however created a strawman. And Werner Gitt has published in several scientific peer reviewed journals. Your objection to him seems to be that he believes in God as did almost all of the founders of the major fields of science. I will list some of them if you are interested. Nevertheless the proof is in the pudding. Why don’t you answer the questions I posed to PH and show how the coded information in DNA arises without a mental source?

[Lincoln]

Ranger,

“You're sounding like a broken record here. Let me remind you that the burden of proof is on you. You can post anything you feel like, but without evidence backing you up it remains in the realm of rhetorics.”

No, the burden of proof is on the one who seeks to overthrow about 5 thousand years of experimentally proved fact. That is, Coded information that is stored in a specified order and provides translatable and communicative instructions ALWAYS derives from a mental process. Now prove that to be wrong and you can be another Einstein.

“Software doing unexpected things are called "bugs", which are unrelated to microbes that cause disease. If you are contenting that genetic information in organisms perform imperfectly, congratulations, you are supporting evolution.”

I did not question evolution on a micro level.

“I am still waiting for your reply to my refutation of the "Watchmaker analogy."

I already did that.

[MrBaggins]

Lincoln

I'd just like to get a synopsis of where you're coming from. Here are 10 yes or no answers.

1) You believe that Intelligent design was required to originate RNA, or DNA? Yes or No
2) You believe that DNA contains coded information? Yes or No
3) You believe that Intelligent design was required to originate because it is too improbable (or impossible) that a suitable informational container form naturaly? Yes or No
4) You believe that DNA functions today as a biological form of information transfer (example our DNA)? Yes or No
5) You believe that microevolution occurs today? Yes or No
6) You believe that macroevolution never occured? Yes or No
7) You believe that macroevolution could not occur because DNA has an arbitrary limit on the processes capacity to change? Yes or No
8) You believe that DNA for existing species is set within an arbitrary "Kind" (a "dog" can only become another "dog" or a "cold germ" only another "cold germ"?) Yes or No
9) You believe that random naturally occuring phenomena do not have the capability to change DNA? Yes or No
10) Do you believe in a flood as per the bible? Yes or No

Thanks

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Like I said, speculation and no evidence of one kind turning into another, And yes the record is full of fraud and incorrect interpretations.

Like you asserted without cause. Driopithecine apes became Australopithicus which became at least two species, one of which became Homo Erectus, which became one or perhaps two other species, Homo Sapiens and Neanderthalensis. No speculation is involved. Constant mindless repetition will not change well reasoned deduction based on clear evidence into mere speculation.

The record is NOT full of fraud unless you are counting your claims of speculation as fraud or perhaps your are talking about the stuff the ICR puts out.

Like, I said; Please give the details. And you have not even solved the problem of the evolution of DNA so why do you persist on a theory which has no foundation?

I solved it. Lots of have as well. Its no mystery.

Please give details of how god created the universe without needing a god to create god.

Quit ignoring that.

I can make speculative statements as well as yours, i.e., No, trees were created. Repeating your mantra that “evolution did it” really does not make it a fact. You seem to be caught up in a web of circular reasoning.

You can invent all the nonsense you want. I am waiting for evidence. You consistently ignore the request.

You have no idea of what a circle is. I don't have to assume evolution exists when it is clearly seen in the lab and nature.

At least you now admit that you are guessing. Call your guess whatever you want. It is still speculation.

I always admit when I am guessing or speculating. I don't have to guess about the existence of evolution.

I guess I missed that explanation. If you have figured it out then you should be able to answer the questions I posed to Provost Harrison. And you are right. You do not have any proof of what happened 3 billion years ago. Just your guess.

You didn't miss it you ingored it since it is the post you are replying to.

Actually we do know some things about 3 billion years ago. There are fossils of bacteria from then. What we don't know is how life started. How did god get started?

Are you planning on ignoring that question forever?

Here is that part you pretended wasn't in the post.

DNA is not always copied exactly. Many of the changes are NOT fatal. Only some are. The non-fatal changes accumulate. That is evolution. Don't pretend I didn't just show you how unless you can prove that change either doesn't happen or doesn't accumulate.

Funny how you just skipped over that. Just like you skip over the question of where god came from. If life must have a creator the creator must have one. There is no way around that.

Then what are we arguing about – micro evolution are macro evolution? Micro evolution is a fact. Macro evolution is speculation.

Micro evolution is a creationist term. Evolution is not speculation. The gradual accumulation of change over time is all it is. It leads to speciation. It changed an ape into a human. A tiny little creature with three toes into a a 3/4 ton horse with one toe.

And your argument inevitably leads to the evolution or creation of matter. So we both end up with a mystery. Should that stop the progress of science because certain things will never be known?

What it leads to has nothing to with the probability that life evolved from cyano-bacteria or something similar into all modern life.

As for your question I am not the one saying science must stop. You are the one denying what science has shown us.

I simply said that your claims that life must a have a creator shows that a creator must have a creator ASSUMING your claims are right. I see no reason to make that assumption. You are the insisting that life must have a creator on the grounds that I can't answer all question about how things got started.

Yet again a creationist is claiming 'we don't know everything therefor god exists'.

Then you should be able to answer the questions that I asked PH. You should at least have a basis for your speculation. Why not begin by answering those questions?

Why not answer mine instead of evading. PH can answer quite well himself. I will look at it. If I answer you will most likely ignore the answer just as you did this time regarding how DNA evolves.

How did the creator come to be?

No, I did not. He asserted that there is no known example of one kind of animal turning into another distinct kind. That is what I affirmed. Micro evolution is a fact but that should not be confused with the speculation that pretends that we all evolved from bacteria.

No you didn't affirm it. You asserted it. Its false. The fossil record has ample evidence that species have changed not only species but genera and family and there is even some evidence of changing phyla.

I never questioned that.

No you denied it instead. You said information must come from an inteligence. The bacteria changed information to fit the environment. New information was created.

The second half of your post should have been seperate. I will answer it seperatly as it is a different subject.

Oh by the way if life must have a creator then the creator must have a creator. How long do you intend to ignore this?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Lincoln

I'd just like to get a synopsis of where you're coming from. Here are 10 yes or no answers.

1) You believe that Intelligent design was required to originate RNA, or DNA? Yes or No
2) You believe that DNA contains coded information? Yes or No
3) You believe that Intelligent design was required to originate because it is too improbable (or impossible) that a suitable informational container form naturaly? Yes or No
4) You believe that DNA functions today as a biological form of information transfer (example our DNA)? Yes or No
5) You believe that microevolution occurs today? Yes or No
6) You believe that macroevolution never occured? Yes or No
7) You believe that macroevolution could not occur because DNA has an arbitrary limit on the processes capacity to change? Yes or No
8) You believe that DNA for existing species is set within an arbitrary "Kind" (a "dog" can only become another "dog" or a "cold germ" only another "cold germ"?) Yes or No
9) You believe that random naturally occuring phenomena do not have the capability to change DNA? Yes or No
10) Do you believe in a flood as per the bible? Yes or No

Thanks

1. The chemical nature of DNA/RNA is explained by chemical laws. The coded information contained with that chemical structure requires intelligent intervention.

2. Yes

3. Not the "container" the information within the container.

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. I cannot say "never".

7. There is not an arbitrary limit. But there does seem to be an observed limit in the capacity for endless variation and evolution.

8. Yes, except under not so narrow a definition as you have given the term. A pollywog obviously has the potential of becoming a frog. I cannot say that other equally astounding transitions have not occured in extinct species. A "cold germ" does not have to remain a germ that only causes colds for example.

9. Randomnes can change DNA, yes.

10. Yes as a matter of faith.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Thats not true. It may have been true with the earliest results but the final results of COBE show variations. I think it was one part in 10,000. In fact some thought there was too much variation to fit theory.

The amount of (expected) anisotropy in the CMB depends on the cosmological model you use and the figure used for the cosmological density parameter.

Maybe I am missing something, as I have not read the mammoth entirety of the thread, but what point is trying to be proved. That Big Bang theory is wrong?

If so, there are a number of big bang models that incorporate isotropy, and others that include none. Finding the amount of anisotopy only serves to eliminate some models. Doesn't it?

Also, some anistropy is created by the motion of the Earth through the substratum. We are travelling at ~620 km/s with respect to the CMB., so doppler shift causes the CMB to be colder in one direction than the other. Although I think that has been corrected out of the COBE results.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
This and the entirety of the rest of your post is irrelevant.

My entire post was relevant. You just didn't like it.

You are describing non coded “information” that exists in nature. We are talking about apples and oranges here.

We are talking about Gitt's bad logic. He said all information is coded and it all has a sender and that it all has to have an inteligence. That is false and I showed an example of non-coded information from a non-inteligent source. That was all it took to show his basic premise is false.

There is a big difference between specifically ordered CODED instructions that must exist beyond the statistical level and so called information that exists in inanimate material.

That wasn't what Gitt was claiming. He said ALL information with no caveats or disclaimers of any kind. He is a bad scientist.

You should read the thread where I began to post so that I do not have to repeat myself.

I read every post in the thread.

I think I entered this discussion about page 8. Anyway, here are a few more of statements and my answers:

Yes you did. I read from the start. All of it. Plus 15 pages on another thread.

Irrelevant. You are using a definition of information that does not apply to that which is in coded form and occupies levels beyond statistical as we agreed earlier.

I agread to no such thing. I am not limited by your desires to avoid the facts. The fact is Gitt was referring to all information. The fact is I gave a clear example that showed his premise false. The fact is he never supported a single one of those assertions that you have phalaciously characterized as laws.

Again we are talking about two different things.

He wasn't. He was talking about information and he supported not one premise.

Why don’t you review it here then without misrepresenting or misunderstanding exactly the nature of coded information such as is contained in DNA?

I did exactly that. You didn't like it. I misrepresented nothing. I quoted it exactly. I even checked the net to see other claims of his. He is a poor scientist when is his religious beliefs are involved.

You have not answered even one question on the origin of information as it really exists in DNA.

I didn't have to do that to critique his bad logic.

You have however created a strawman.

You are mistaken. I pointed out Werner's straw man was naked. I didn't create anything. He did. He created false premises and reached conclusions that were actually just more false premises.

And Werner Gitt has published in several scientific peer reviewed journals.

I am sure that he has. I am also sure he never published that particular garbage in a scientific peer reviewed journal or it would have been mentioned. He works with information theory on computers not with biologists. That means he only deals with human generated code.

I checked the school. Its a computer department that he works in.

Your objection to him seems to be that he believes in God as did almost all of the founders of the major fields of science.

I object to his bad logic and false premises. The founders of modern physics are mostly non-believers. Same for Darwin even though he started as a divinity student. Same for most modern biologists. 95% of the biologists in the National Academy of Science are non-believers.

I will list some of them if you are interested.

Will it be as silly as Draco saying us to tell the creationist they are full of it. I would be happy to debate anyone of the people Draco used for sources. Here on the internet, not in a limited time format, verbal discussion, where sound bites replace actual debate.

Nevertheless the proof is in the pudding. Why don’t you answer the questions I posed to PH and show how the coded information in DNA arises without a mental source?

Why don't you answer mine?

If life must have a creator then a creator must also have a creator. Where did the creator come from and why shouldn't we save ourselves from the infinite regression by assuming the universe was always there instead of a god?

Gitt is a bad scientist and I showed it. You were unable to refute a single thing I said.

[MrBaggins]

Lincoln>

Information IS the container. The container IS information. The gene sequence is just a series of atoms.

If I were able to precisely form DNA at the atomic level like lego (and could deal with the complexity), then I could, provided I implanted the target DNA into a suitable host medium, grow a human or a dinosaur, and providing I exactly duplicated the sequence of genes (of a human or dinosaur)

If I formed (using the above method) an endless amount of DNA sequences without any knowledge (operating without Intelligence) and placed that target DNA into a growth medium suitable for primal bacterial, eventually primal bacteria would grow.

Do you agree with these statements?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
10. Yes as a matter of faith.

Well that is a bit of topic but I would LOVE to discuss this abberant faith with you. I was pretty sure that was your answer. I figured you for a stealth creationist. That is, one that does want to admit that the Bible rather than science is the basis for his beliefs.

Just to be clear and to not be a stealth operator. I was raised Catholic. I am agnostic not atheist but some would call it a soft atheism I suppose. I see no reason to believe in a god but I can see no way to disprove the existence of a general god so I take no position on the existence of creator except that I don't see the need for one. A desire for a afterlife is the not the same as reason for believing in a god. Wishfull thinking is not reason.

Note that I said general god. Jehova is a specific god with specific properties including actions described in Genesis. The evidence is overwhelmingly against Genesis.

You don't have to respond to this Lincoln. Its just information to show where I am coming from and to make it clear I don't think stealth creationism is a intelectually honest manuever. Its part of the present effort to yet again sneak the Bible into the US public school system by trying to pass off Genesis as creation science.

[Lincoln]

Etheired,

“The record is NOT full of fraud...”

I said “fraud and incorrect interpretations.” I don’t have the faith that you do to believe 200 years of confusion, fraud and subjective interpretation as fact.

“I solved it. Lots of have as well. Its no mystery.
Please give details of how god created the universe without needing a god to create god”

You solved nothing. But you did build a strawman. If there was a god that created "God" then he would be God wouldn’t he? Is that the only mystery that troubles you? I have not got the slightest idea how God came into existence. Nor do you know where the material that you have assigned magical powers to came from. So if you want to get into a philosophical or theological discussion about the nature of God I am not interested. Maybe you can just answer the questions instead of evading the issue.

“Funny how you just skipped over that”

I intentionally skipped over your explanation of mutations because I do not dispute the process of micro evolution.

“Micro evolution is a creationist term. Evolution is not speculation.”

It is a term that troubles you because you cannot separate speculation fron fact. Macro evolution is speculation. It is not fact as you suppose. If you choose to use the same definition for it all then you have lowered the threshold. Separating fact from fiction is a necessary division in science.

“You are the one denying what science has shown us.”

I do not deny fact. I do not accept science fiction however as fact.

“Yet again a creationist is claiming 'we don't know everything therefor god exists'”

No, I am saying that the obvious source of information (that I defined earlier several times) that is contained in coded form has ALWAYS originated from an intelligent mental source. You are saying in effect that there is an exception here “therefore evolution did it”.