What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Same nonsense, different day.

If a small drop of water drips into a hollow in the earth, it remains as a tiny droplet of water.

Then another one, and another and another....for a very very long time

The nature of the situation changes, they are no longer separate droplets, they are a pond....a lake, an inland sea. So lots of small things can ad ...[text shortened]... etic changes can add together and effect a major change.

To difficult for you to understand?

You are not adding anything to create something functionally
complex either, you can pile all kinds of "___" till it stinks to high
heaven. That is not what we are talking about! If you want to add
something and produce what we are talking about, find some code
that is running, start adding letters to that, see how long before you
end up crashing the program. If you can add code a little bit over
time, year after year, and have it change into some by far much
more functionally complex without breaking anything, you will have
convinced mel
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
It looks like you have a problem recognizing sarcasm.
The very idea of an omniscient god is rediculous on the face of it.
Such an omniscient being would have the knowlege of the universe inside it in such a way that it would already know who is the "sinner"
and who is not and who would go to its heaven and who would not,
BEFORE it created the whole frig ...[text shortened]... dy know who has everlasting life so the whole proposition is a bit on the rediculous side.

God makes the claim everyone is a sinner, so it isn't hard to spot
one. This discussion isn't about sinners and God as much as what
faith people have in their world views, how they start looking at
things basically causes each of us to view all that is before us in
certain ways.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are not adding anything to create something functionally
complex either, you can pile all kinds of "___" till it stinks to high
heaven. That is not what we are talking about! If you want to add
something and produce what we are talking about, find some code
that is running, start adding letters to that, see how long before you
end up crashing the p ...[text shortened]... much
more functionally complex without breaking anything, you will have
convinced mel
Kelly

You are Miss de Point and I claim my £5.

What is this functionally complex bowlarks of which you speak.

Oh yes, I remember, its another term from IDspeak.

Why do IDers try to win a loosing arguement by merely inventing new frames of reference and coining meaningless terms. Goebels' lessons weren't wasted on you

Originally posted by KellyJay
Bigots don't like conclusions sneer and deride their efforts, is
someone here a bigot in your view that is deriding their efforts?
I'm questioning the conclusions, I don't believe I'm deriding
anyone, and I'm not attacking anyone's integrity either. Not
agreeing with someone does not mean I'm calling them a liar,
and not agreeing with them does not mea ...[text shortened]... I should just accept what I'm
told when I don't believe what I'm being told?
Kelly

Bigot? Draw your own conclusions.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
SO what are the differences between you, me, a broccolli and an amoeba? DNA sequences. That's it. That's all the difference there is! And guess what? That self same DNA can, and does, change over time. We've got lots and lots of time. 4,000,000,000 years or so. We know that around 40 mutations occur per generation to the germ line in current hum ...[text shortened]... w, and we have many diverse species, habiting whereever there is conditions to support life.

There are small changes, you can draw a line, but unless you know
where those lines are taking you, how do you know many of these
changes are not keeping us on track, instead of turning us into
something else?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are small changes, you can draw a line, but unless you know
where those lines are taking you, how do you know many of these
changes are not keeping us on track, instead of turning us into
something else?
Kelly

Could you post this message with a little thought rather than mere trite sneering.

There is no content in your post. Get a grip

Originally posted by micarr
Just Kelly if we had to join the dots to recapitulate an unseen crime. I just think you have not read enough to comment about the matters that you are talking about which is only a theory of mine. What books have you read about abiogenesis and why did you not like them for instance and what are you doing about it too? Are you comfy in your armchair? In science we call that a crank.

There isn't anything wrong with connecting the dots, it is a good
way to attempt to understand; however, it does mean that we
have all necessary information to grasp what some dots mean
inorder to know if they are really what we think they are. I'm
telling you that when we start making claims about things that
cannot be shown to be wrong, it is faith and belief, and if you
want to call that science too, that is up to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There isn't anything wrong with connecting the dots, it is a good
way to attempt to understand; however, it does mean that we
have all necessary information to grasp what some dots mean
inorder to know if they are really what we think they are. I'm
telling you that when we start making claims about things that
cannot be shown to be wrong, it is faith and belief, and if you
want to call that science too, that is up to you.
Kelly

So you question the whole basis of science? Alternatives? The very apprataus you use to make this possible was a product of science. What have you read about abiogenesis in book form and why do you disagree?

Originally posted by KellyJay
There isn't anything wrong with connecting the dots, it is a good
way to attempt to understand; however, it does mean that we
have all necessary information to grasp what some dots mean
inorder to know if they are really what we think they are. I'm
telling you that when we start making claims about things that
cannot be shown to be wrong, it is faith and belief, and if you
want to call that science too, that is up to you.
Kelly

but Kelly, abiogenesis CAN be shown to be wrong, if it indeed is wrong. If we found a rabbit fossil from 4 billion years ago that'd disprove it immediately. Theories are there to try and explain all available evidence - that's just what abiogenesis IS. We're not purporting it to be an absolute truth, but it is the best explanation of all available data. I really don't see what your problem is. Theories are nothing to do with theistic "faith", it's about finding the most parsimonious, logical, explanation for a data set.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are not adding anything to create something functionally
complex either, you can pile all kinds of "___" till it stinks to high
heaven. That is not what we are talking about! If you want to add
something and produce what we are talking about, find some code
that is running, start adding letters to that, see how long before you
end up crashing the p ...[text shortened]... much
more functionally complex without breaking anything, you will have
convinced mel
Kelly

it's not about adding one code to a pre-existing one. It's about adding different codes to multiple copies of the same underlying code, and only keeping the ones that continue to work (and at a higher level, propagating those which work best).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
it's not about adding one code to a pre-existing one. It's about adding different codes to multiple copies of the same underlying code, and only keeping the ones that continue to work (and at a higher level, propagating those which work best).

don't let him get by with that crap about science being the same as faith.

Originally posted by frogstomp
don't let him get by with that crap about science being the same as faith.

I've tried to explain the difference, but he refuses to listen (or perhaps, think).

Originally posted by micarr
So you question the whole basis of science? Alternatives? The very apprataus you use to make this possible was a product of science. What have you read about abiogenesis in book form and why do you disagree?

Where in what I said do you get I'm questioning the whole
basis of science? Is it because I said there is belief and faith
involved? Faith and belief take place between the ears of
man, even the spirit or soul if you use and believe in those
terms. Your formation of your world view, your grasp of
reality takes on a measure of faith and belief. Man is a
creature of both it is unavoidable.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I've tried to explain the difference, but he refuses to listen (or perhaps, think).

There isn't a difference.
Much like base ball stats, a line drive and blooper of a hit both look
the same in the news paper the next day. If you are sitting on your
chair believing something is true when you cannot prove it either
right or wrong, than that is what you are doing, sitting there believing.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There isn't a difference.
Much like base ball stats, a line drive and blooper of a hit both look
the same in the news paper the next day. If you are sitting on your
chair believing something is true when you cannot prove it either
right or wrong, than that is what you are doing, sitting there believing.
Kelly

So now there is no differnce between the position of a fundamentalist christian who believes that the world is flat and was created in 7 days, 6000 years ago - irrespective of all the evidence to the contrary, and a scientist who uses the word 'believe' to say "all available evidence suggests" that the world is 4.53 billion years old, is spherical and orbits the sun?