Originally posted by LangtreeYou haven't read all the posts? I doubt you've read anything at all except your own biblical propaganda. If you ever did read any credible literature on the subject, you'd some to see just how mind-bogglingly ignorant you really are.
I haven't read all the posts, but one must remember evolution and creationism are both theories of origins. The data that exists today, exists in the present and can only be conjectured since past events cannot be accurately recreated. Neither theory is testable by the scientific method, so neither side lay claim to their view as being scientific. I find ...[text shortened]... gner. Now you have Intelligent Design, thus establishing the creationist position as factual.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZIt is always is amusing how evolutionists must resort to name calling. Well, the first problem is evolutionists can't prove scientifically that the Big Bang ever occurred. Secondly, natural selection occurrs only within kinds, if not then the distinctions among kinds would be blurred. Third, I read recently that evolutionary scientists are moving away from traditional uniformatarianism to creationist catastrophism. Fourth, the rock strata is still devoid of transitional forms, that hasn't changed. Fifth, the gene pools of all species have less variety and it will continue tobe depleted. All these and more evidences are scientific proof. Evolution is not a theory in crisis, Evolution is TERMINALLY ILL.
You should have read the thread. You would have found person after person coming into the thread stating what you are stating and being shown to be wrong before slinking away to be replaced by yet another idiot.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Evolution's primary mechanism is random processes governed by chance, "the more complex something is, the harder it is to design." Order from chaos doesn't occur in the universe, chance cannot design even the simpliest organism. For example, it takes 20 amino acids to form one protein molecule, each of these amino acids must form in the correct order for it to happen. The chances of an event such as this occurring the first time is 10 to the twentieth power, 10 with 20 zeros following it. Richard Dawkins is a very outspoken practicing atheist and Darwinist. Confesses that even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is to be seen everywhere. However, inspite of the evidence he embraces evolution. See Dawkins, R. The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Co. NY p. 43
Dr. Lee Spetner of Johns Hopkins University, has concluded that mutations do not in fact produce new information. See Spetner, L. Not by Chance, The Judica Press Inc Brooklyn NY p. 143.
Dr. Werner Gitt and professor at The German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the thins we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) informationto produce information,and ultimately information is the result of intelligence. See W. Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, p 64-67.
//I want to thank an unknown acquaintance of mine, who sited these books and I have purchased them, so I can't take all the credit.//
EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY IN CRISIS, IT IS TERMINALLY ILL.
Originally posted by LangtreeI'm sure everything that you are saying is exactly what your youth-minister told you, but it's simply not true. There is a huge body of evolutionary experiments. There is a huge body of work on it - none of which is contradictory. Evolution is a "theory" in the true, scientific, meaning of the word; an explanation which has been repeatedly re-tested by numerous independant groups and never found to be wrong. ID is a theory in the popular usage of the word; an idea - nothing more.
I haven't read all the posts, but one must remember evolution and creationism are both theories of origins. The data that exists today, exists in the present and can only be conjectured since past events cannot be accurately recreated. Neither theory is testable by the scientific method, so neither side lay claim to their view as being scientific. I find ...[text shortened]... gner. Now you have Intelligent Design, thus establishing the creationist position as factual.
You want ID to be proven true, well, prove God exists for a start then.
1 edit
Originally posted by LangtreeFirst of all, evolutions mechanism is NOT blind chance as you so guilibly put it. Anything but. Sure, mutation IS chance, but the differential survival and reproduction of organisms is not. That is a pure lie spouted by creationists.
Evolution's primary mechanism is random processes governed by chance, "the more complex something is, the harder it is to design." Order from chaos doesn't occur in the universe, chance cannot design even the simpliest organism. For example, it takes 20 amino acids to form one protein molecule, each of these amino acids must form in the correct order for ...[text shortened]... I can't take all the credit.//
EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY IN CRISIS, IT IS TERMINALLY ILL.
Perhaps you should read the rest of Dawkins' book. I most certainly have. What you are citing is one very specific sentence within the text. He then goes on to show what a rubbish it is.
Of course, your protein example is horrendously naive. You obviously don't know the first thing about biology. Most proteins even the smallest contain many more AA residues than 20. Try a minimum of ~140. There are 20 diffrent amino acids, thus the probability of any protein occurring at random, by single step formation is 140^20. This is a very big number. However, you'll notice that I used quantifiers. Evolutionists understand that proteins didn't arrise by single step formation. There were earlier versions of that protein - less well adapted (therefore mistakes were okay) and probably also shorter. Increasing the length of a protein is very easy - it just requires that addition of a few DNA bases into the genome - a common mutation. The thing about evolution is that it starts with something sufficiently simple that it could arrise by chance, which over time becomes more complex.
Originally posted by LangtreeFirst, why would an EVOLUTIONIST ever try to prove the big bang happened? The big bang has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. That would be physics you are thinking of. Second, I have no idea what you mean about evolution occurring "between kinds". You'll have to be less obfuscatory please. Third, there is no shift in evolutionary biologists away from evolution. Some people have discussed the importance of events such as the KT extinction, or the Permian Extinction, but that in no way detracts from evolutionary theory - it just helps complete the story. Fourth, what do you want from a "transitional form"? Perhaps Archaeopteryx is to your liking? Of course, the truth is that every generation is a transitional form, just that the transitions happen too slowly to be seen even in all of recorded history (this is to say that gene frequencies are changing all the time, even if the phenotypic form is unaltered). Fifth, what is your evidence for this statement? Mutation is the source of variation - that will not stop.
It is always is amusing how evolutionists must resort to name calling. Well, the first problem is evolutionists can't prove scientifically that the Big Bang ever occurred. Secondly, natural selection occurrs only within kinds, if not then the distinctions among kinds would be blurred. Third, I read recently that evolutionary scientists are moving away fr ...[text shortened]... nces are scientific proof. Evolution is not a theory in crisis, Evolution is TERMINALLY ILL.
Evolution is a fine theory, as powerful and vibrant as when Darwin first envisaged it.
Now, part of your homework - read the thread - you'll find all your "arguments" have been dealt with before, many, many times, which explains our lack of tolerance towards foolish people.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by scottishinnzExcuse me, my youth minister didn't tell me this. I am too old for youth ministry. The problem with testing, is that you are adding an element that was not present, at the time of the original event, man. Thus as you experiment the test is tainted with intelligent design. Anyway I prefer to call it creationism.
I'm sure everything that you are saying is exactly what your youth-minister told you, but it's simply not true. There is a huge body of evolutionary experiments. There is a huge body of work on it - none of which is contradictory. Evolution is a "theory" in the true, scientific, meaning of the word; an explanation which has been repeatedly re-tested ...[text shortened]... a - nothing more.
You want ID to be proven true, well, prove God exists for a start then.
Originally posted by LangtreeAh, so every experiment ever done is flawed then? Is that it? Because it doesn't agree with a book which is (a) wrong on several key aspects of the universe, and (b) internally inconsistant.
Excuse me, my youth minister didn't tell me this. I am too old for youth ministry. The problem with testing, is that you are adding an element that was not present, at the time of the original event, man. Thus as you experiment the test is tainted with intelligent design. Anyway I prefer to call it creationism.
1 edit
Originally posted by LangtreeAh sh*#. Back to the Stone Age everyone.
Excuse me, my youth minister didn't tell me this. I am too old for youth ministry. The problem with testing, is that you are adding an element that was not present, at the time of the original event, man. Thus as you experiment the test is tainted with intelligent design. Anyway I prefer to call it creationism.
Edit: Hey Lang, how you been? Still learning?
Originally posted by scottishinnzMy god, didn't I go over this about a month ago?
Of course, your protein example is horrendously naive. You obviously don't know the first thing about biology. Most proteins even the smallest contain many more AA residues than 20. Try a minimum of ~140. There are 20 diffrent amino acids, thus the probability of any protein occurring at random, by single step formation is 140^20. This is ...[text shortened]... ing sufficiently simple that it could arrise by chance, which over time becomes more complex.
2 edits
I am a creationist. I support creation on religious/faith reasons. I have abandoned evolution (I used to be an evolutionist) based on scientific reasons.
The biggest problems I see with evolution:
1. It doesn't explain how life sprang out of non-life.
2. The THEORY of evolution is in direct contradiction 2nd LAW of thermodynamics: The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. Therefore if everything started in total chaos, or say right after an enormous explosion... how could this system drift from enormous entropy to now which (arguably) is a state more organized than total chaos.
Forgive me if these issues have been addressed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by stevenv76"1. It doesn't explain how life sprang out of non-life."
I am a creationist. I support creation on religious/faith reasons. I have abandoned evolution (I used to be an evolutionist) based on scientific reasons.
The biggest problems I see with evolution:
1. It doesn't explain how life sprang out of non-life.
2. The THEORY of evolution is in direct contradiction 2nd LAW of thermodynamics: The total ...[text shortened]... is a state more organized than total chaos.
Forgive me if these issues have been addressed.
It doesn't claim to, evolution explains how you get from simple life forms to more complex ones.
"2. The THEORY of evolution is in direct contradiction 2nd LAW of thermodynamics: The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. Therefore if everything started in total chaos, or say right after an enormous explosion... how could this system drift from enormous entropy to now which (arguably) is a state more organized than total chaos."
the theory of evolution is not in conflict with the 'law' of thermo dynamics. I would point out that the 'law' of thermodynamics is little more than an empirical observation, there is no 'force' of nature involved, just statistics, as such even if there were a contradiction this would not be an issue for evolution.