Slashdot Mirror

Apart from where it says fruit bearing plants existed before fish. and all the other things it says that disagree with established science. So you have a choice of dismissing the science, or accepting that the bible is either fallible or allegorical. But you can't say the bible is literal and infallible, and the science is sound, since they contradict one another.

Couldn't they use creationist Bill Dembski's Explanatory Filter to determine if God exists? I mean, if they detected design it would have to be God, and not space aliens or any other designers because "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." as Dembski has said.

1. If by critical thinking you mean Slothful Induction. I don't need to prove with 100% accuracy that Using property without permission is stealing resources, trespassing on a network, and wrong. It's a reasonable assumption because:

2. my assumptions are valid by social standards of property, the spirit of the law, and completely reasonable under my scenarios.

I'm not making strict legal arguments. Legal defenses are a parade of lies and deception. I'm dealing with common sense and reasonable behavior. And I've been clear about that. Therefore your fifty-page-later revelation about your poor interpretation of some law in NY and what you claim to be implied consent are straw men. Because I was never arguing that it's not implied consent; simply that it was NOT consent. I also didn't say it was stealing under a subsection of some law somewhere. Although both arguments on your part are questionable.

3. When I said property I'm talking about the network, not it's hardware.

If someone wants to share their network with people, that's their choice. But that's not what we're talking about.

You're right, Einstein, I forgot the finer details of anonymous FTP. I also thought there was info somewhere about the FTP that could be gleamed from it, such as if you're allowed access or not, who's the admin, or some info at the file root. But then I was always making the assumptions we're talking about reasonable people that could tell that "NETGEAR" as a network name was probably not configured at all. But apparently we're talking about big free-loading genius hacker low-lifes like you who commit crimes and deny everything. Something to aspire to.

Nevertheless, anonymous FTP has to be explicitly set-up. So explicitly in fact, that my mom is not going to set up an anonymous FTP by mistake, which means the chances of an anonymous FTP accidentally existing, on even an average persons computer, are practically nil. Because average people aren't network administrators.

That's also why my mom isn't going to know if her network is secure. It's unreasonable for you to say "She has a choice to secure it or I have permission." It's a false dilemma because you have choices too, of waiting to ask her for permission first. That you don't proves your only interest is in stealing. And no one is forcing you to do that. You can get your own damn internet, leach. Implied Consent is a euphemism for Forced Consent. That's what you're doing to her and saying it's consent. Ambiguity, Equivocation.

If you're so smart about fallacies why do you make such egregious violations?

4. You're claiming "implied consent" like it's a legal defense that you have permission. That again is a strict legal term and I'm not interested in what the law says but what's logically reasonable and right.

Just because something is legally "allowed" doesn't mean it's right:

Implied Consent once meant that women consent to rape through marriage. Rape is not consent. And currently the law says it's legally right for cops to forcibly detain someone who's driving a car suspiciously, and forcibly test them for drugs. That means that when you're caught with a white powder, resist arrest and eat the evidence, they are going to bust your face open, and torture you until they get a blood sample. And for no other reason than that you got in a car. But in reality, that's not consent. You have no choice. Silence and force are not consent here.

Sure, from a legal standpoint it is: but that pdf you linked to didn't agree with this either. He said too many people are unaware of tech law and the contracts their clicking. But laws have always existed/been passed with people unaware. Even before the internet. That too many people don't understand what's legal has nothing to do with "Should we make trespass laws about intangible things yet?" Maybe Ignorance != Defense is wrong, but it didn

1. Using peoples' property without their permission is stealing. Period.

None of your links (and thanks for wasting my time) and nothing you have said, and I'm reasonably confident there's nothing you can say, that would change that fact. You're either tragically confused and selfish or you've got a terminal case of cognitive dissonance.

2. I don't care about one example of NY law. Just because something is/isn't legal somewhere doesn't mean it's right. See 1.

3. Anonymous FTPs are set up with a page of rules and regulations. They're not your average neighbors property that just says linksys.

Reasonable to share warez/MP3s? FTP/P2P is used to inflate plausible deniability to cover computer crimes. Perhaps 'implied consent' (what you're so fond of) should apply there too. Is it really fair to create a P2P network like Napster and pretend like 90% of what goes on there isn't crime, and if it was, you're powerless to stop it, so bear no responsibility?

I do believe artists and developers should be compensated, reasonably balanced against free market forces, adapting to new technology. But downloading music or software and paying nothing for it is stealing, however you justify that. Calling it anything else would be deception..but that's way off topic.

I believe you're wifi opinion is also deception. Maybe you're deceiving yourself, but that's just retarded. How can you make persuasive arguments when you can't even tell the difference?

Remember that people go wireless out of convenience to themselves, not because they're underworld altruists like you. And just because YOU claim to want to be leached doesn't mean that 100% do. Nor does it give you the right.

Wrongdoers often make this claim: There's nothing wrong with X; I want X done to me. Simply replace X with e-mail intercepts, eavesdropping, impersonation, stealing, etc. It's not your place or property to decide what other people want.

Wrongdoers also claim there's no victim and that's not for you to decide. It's for the owners of the property. They and their ISP aren't bestowed with endless network capacity to divvy out anonymously for the underworld leaches.

But get this: even though you're totally WRONG, whether or not someone is inconvenienced has nothing to do with it: IT'S MY PROPERTY. If I'm away on vacation you can't live in my house or use my network, no matter how crudely you think it's being wasted. It's not yours.

4. Implied consent. Well, maybe someone who abandons their car, keyed and open, is going to have some liability on their hands if someone drives their car. Implied consent legally means that the owner is potentially forced to bear some responsibility for their recklessness. It DOES NOT mean that you're being given TRUE permission. That doesn't make it okay for you to steal it. You have to act responsibly too. Because stealing someone's car is wrong. See 1.

5. Feeble is when you cast baloney to see what sticks like it's a court room. If you don't "think it's OK to steal" then why do you do it? Using someone's wifi - when the vast majority of wifi is intended for the convenient un-tethering of their network for their own personal convenience - is stealing.

A computer network is property. It costs money to access and use that property. The ISP, and the majority of their customers, don't want you to be on their property. Just because

1. Using peoples' property without their permission is stealing. Period.

None of your links (and thanks for wasting my time) and nothing you have said, and I'm reasonably confident there's nothing you can say, that would change that fact. You're either tragically confused and selfish or you've got a terminal case of cognitive dissonance.

2. I don't care about one example of NY law. Just because something is/isn't legal somewhere doesn't mean it's right. See 1.

3. Anonymous FTPs are set up with a page of rules and regulations. They're not your average neighbors property that just says linksys.

Reasonable to share warez/MP3s? FTP/P2P is used to inflate plausible deniability to cover computer crimes. Perhaps 'implied consent' (what you're so fond of) should apply there too. Is it really fair to create a P2P network like Napster and pretend like 90% of what goes on there isn't crime, and if it was, you're powerless to stop it, so bear no responsibility?

I do believe artists and developers should be compensated, reasonably balanced against free market forces, adapting to new technology. But downloading music or software and paying nothing for it is stealing, however you justify that. Calling it anything else would be deception..but that's way off topic.

I believe you're wifi opinion is also deception. Maybe you're deceiving yourself, but that's just retarded. How can you make persuasive arguments when you can't even tell the difference?

Remember that people go wireless out of convenience to themselves, not because they're underworld altruists like you. And just because YOU claim to want to be leached doesn't mean that 100% do. Nor does it give you the right.

Wrongdoers often make this claim: There's nothing wrong with X; I want X done to me. Simply replace X with e-mail intercepts, eavesdropping, impersonation, stealing, etc. It's not your place or property to decide what other people want.

Wrongdoers also claim there's no victim and that's not for you to decide. It's for the owners of the property. They and their ISP aren't bestowed with endless network capacity to divvy out anonymously for the underworld leaches.

But get this: even though you're totally WRONG, whether or not someone is inconvenienced has nothing to do with it: IT'S MY PROPERTY. If I'm away on vacation you can't live in my house or use my network, no matter how crudely you think it's being wasted. It's not yours.

4. Implied consent. Well, maybe someone who abandons their car, keyed and open, is going to have some liability on their hands if someone drives their car. Implied consent legally means that the owner is potentially forced to bear some responsibility for their recklessness. It DOES NOT mean that you're being given TRUE permission. That doesn't make it okay for you to steal it. You have to act responsibly too. Because stealing someone's car is wrong. See 1.

5. Feeble is when you cast baloney to see what sticks like it's a court room. If you don't "think it's OK to steal" then why do you do it? Using someone's wifi - when the vast majority of wifi is intended for the convenient un-tethering of their network for their own personal convenience - is stealing.

A computer network is property. It costs money to access and use that property. The ISP, and the majority of their customers, don't want you to be on their property. Just because

What would falsify evolution? 1. Several methods of determining phylogenies (ie: Cladistics) are capable of contradicting the existence of evolutionary trees. They could provide counter-evidence for common descent, but they don't. For example, if species taken to be closely related (e.g. chimpanzees and humans) had been shown to have radically different DNA sequences, this would have falsified evolution. 2. The genetic code (the mapping of DNA to amino acids) could conceivably be different between different groups of organisms. If this happened frequently, it would cause severe problems for the theory of common descent. Instead, only minor differences in the genetic code are found, and they tend to occur in ways that strengthen the evolutionary tree. 3. If there were no significant differences in the fauna at different times, or different geographical locations which have been separated for a very long time from other locations (e.g. Australia), this would be a clear falsification. 4. The discovery of fossils in rock from the wrong time period (e.g. the discovery of a rabbit skeleton in Cambrian shales) would falsify evolution. 5. If geology or cosmology had shown the earth to be young (i.e. the 6,000 to 15,000 year time span claimed by young earthers) this would not allow any time for evolution.

I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior.

I think you are just perpetuating the myth that Darwin was racist. I'm pretty sure that the Discovery Institute will be quoting your post in the following way:

I have found that, in general, the brown and red... are tougher, and... are genetically inferior.

Several falsifiable tests exist for evolution: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_can't_be_falsified. Just because you haven't heard of any doesn't mean they aren't there.

Several falsifiable tests exist for evolution: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_can't_be_falsified. Just because you haven't heard of any doesn't mean they aren't there.

EC: Rapid chaotic change, it'll be going smooth for awhile, with periods of stability, and then suddenly you'll see periods of bulky but large changes.

You mean: punctuated equilibria? Why invent a clunky neonym when you can just use a scientific term that already exists?

>> Sure, it's pretty hard to set up an experiment to test evolution.

not with fruitflies it isn't... we have lots of proof of evolution. for real. just not the monkey/human 1million year experiment kind... missing links? yes, we have them.

here's some interesting fuel for your fire: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationis t_arguments

The original poster has a point: in English, creationists use the term "evolutionism" far more than non-creationists. Non-creationists just say "evolution". Some speculate that the creationist terminology originated from an attempt to make evolution seem less scientific, since the "-ism" suffix is often used to refer to ideologies or belief systems (such as "creationism"!). This is especially apparent when creationists refer to evolutionary biologists as "Darwinists". Try here (halfway down) and here and here.

Evolution is a theory the same way relativity is a theory -- with well-documented, logical, observed/observable evidence. The "theory" of relativity is telling your Tom Tom where you are, and the "theory" of evolution is the reason you can read these words. To disbelieve evolution is to ignore facts. Changes in species have been well documented, and it occurs both naturally and artificially every day. From cows to ligers, selective breeding and interbreeding have created both new variations and entirely new species. Plants are hybridized all the time. DNA is constantly being mutated by cosmic radiation, disease, and random errors in reproduction.

Evolution is to species what growth is to individuals -- a seemingly impossible transformation that is occuring all around us, all the time. If you can accept so-called micro evolution, then extrapolate those changes over millennia, that species wouldn't diversify seems almost impossible. Indeed, the number of plant and animal species which exist both in present day and in fossil records -- so-called "living fossils" -- could probably be listed on a single sheet of paper.

The Wikipedia article on evolution is extremely informative, and provides a diverse, although far from exhaustive, set of examples. The EvoWiki has more information.

This is great. You just made my argument, but you don't even realise it.

<me>Hardly. If the specifics of their religion contradict reality, then reality wins.
Failure to realise that is stupid. Don't blame me for that fact.</me>

This is my point! You are equating faith to stupidity. Let me quote Einstein.

Below you define faith: "faith (which means belief without evidence)".
I agree with that definition.

I didn't equate faith with stupidity. I equated belief in *contradiction* of evidence with stupidity.

Believing that some being put it all in motion does not contradict reality.

Believing that that same being has nothing better to do than screw with people about what they eat, who or how they fuck and sets them up against each other by having them kill each other in his name, does.

God the petulant 6 year old, great.

I think you'll find that your Einstein quotes actually back up my position as well.

You should read beyond the first chapter before you claim to speak from a position of authority. You really should not argue against things you know nothing about.

First chapter of what? The Iliad? Koran?
The point I made doesn't rely on the specifics of any particular religion.

All you have to do is look around.

Say, for the sake of argument, that there is a God.
Say, further, that he loves us and wants us all to be nice, happy, not blowing up buildings full of people sort of folks.

Then the simple fact that he told a bunch of different people so many contradictory things about himself isn't really the best way to go about that.

Or, if you're of the mind that your team got it right and all the rest got fake revelations, well that's a pretty piss poor way to achieve those goals as well, don't you think?

So, that's a pretty simple message, delivered ineffectively as was my claim.
You want to add in even more specifics than just that simple of a message and yet there are plenty of people still worshipping "false" gods. And killing and getting killed for largely trivial differences.

Heck, the only way God doesn't come off looking incompetent is if you conclude he's just a dick. He's pretty good at that.


and how's that? By putting a Christmas tree on the town square?

I've never had a problem with Christmas trees. That tradition goes way back before your religion. It could well predate your god even, but I don't know that there's any evidence on that one way or the other.

And if the "extremist Christians" are taking over America and destroying the Constitution, then they are doing a really crappy job because I see the number of Mosques increasing and number of churches declining. I think your fears are unfounded, or at least pointed in the wrong direction.

I'm talking about folks like these:

ID Loons trying to cram their religion into science classes to dumb down our future.

Universities dedicated to gettig religious extremists i positios of power.

And other groups driven by their hatred for American values

Plus the scumbag fag haters, the clinic bombers and other terrorists.

This country was founded, formed and populated by those trying to escape such persecution.

That describes some of those who first came here, although most of those are described as extremists who were thrown out of their home countries for their intolerance and savage ways to those who didn't buy ito the particular brand of crap they were peddling.

Our forefathers wanted to create a country where its citizens could worship free from prosecution.

This is so entirely typical of the deeply dishonest historical revisionism commonly practiced by Christian extremists.

They wanted a country where people were free from the persec

Agreed. The fact is evolution can explain and predict anything and everything, whether or not it is true (e.g. humans have wings so they can escape predators). The fact that a just-so story comes from (insert famous astrophysicist) means nothing in itself.

I'd say gaining complexity is perhaps the definition of evolution, perhaps even including bloat and complexity (even biological systems aren't immune. Lots of complex animals have useless bits left over weighing them down. Appendix, etc).

I agree with most of your other argument but you are flat wrong when you say the appendix is a "useless bit". By some very elementary research it can be seen that the human appendix, for example, is not vestigal and certainly seen to play a part in the immune system. In fact, the appendix can also be found useful for reconstructive surgery. If it has to be removed so be it, but do not classify it as useless just because some biology textbook says so, as research such as above has already been conducted to show that it is useful.

I think the argument is better made that GUIs have evolved too much for their own good. I wonder what would happen if you launched NT 4's explorer.exe in WinXP.... I think i'm gonna go try it...

Let us know the results you find and I hope you don't have anything vital that's not backuped on the machine before attempting your experiment.

And it just gets worse from there... one has to keep inventing more extravagant and obviously contrived excuses about why we can't possibly find any evidence for the truth while simultaneous suggesting that all the evidence that might contradict their theory is "obviously" planted which just goes to further "prove" the conspiracy.

It's about on par with a Jehovah's Witness trying to say that the geological evidence for an old planet was just put there by God to test our faith.

Moral issues aside, willfully engaging in behavior contrary to basic biological drives (reproduction) indicates something seriously wrong with an individual. It's a trait which, if present in all members of a species, would result in the death of said species very quickly. There are obviously benefits to marriage - if there weren't, homosexuals (presumably) wouldn't seek it. Given that marriage is an artificial construct created by society, why should society provide such advantages to behavior which it finds to be detrimental to it?

Wow. This is so ridiculous that I suspect you're trolling, but just in case somebody believes this stuff, let's try a few facts.

One, that something is natural does not make it right. Violence (in particular, male violence) is clearly natural; see Wrangham's Demonic Males for a good summary and pointers to the research. The next time I hear somebody spout the naturallistic fallacy at me, I'm going to give 'em one in the snoot. Pow! My anger will be entirely natural, so I'm sure they'll be fine with it.

Two, there appears to be no risk that everybody will suddenly turn gay and stop having kids if we allow civil unions, so the end-of-the-species argument makes no sense. Is the ability to get married all that keeps you chasing pussy? I hope not, but if so, find a therapist and ask about projection.

Third, if behavior contrary to basic biological drives indicates pathology, then you have much bigger problems than homosexuals. 98 percent of US women who have had sex have used contreception. And god knows how many people have had oral sex, gone on a diet, or worked third shift.

Fourth, if marriage without children is a problem, why not start with the straight childless couples? There are a lot more of them. And shouldn't you be a lot more worried about organizations that promote a child-free lifestyle for straights?

Fifth, homosexuals have kids. I know that fundies are often a little confused by this, but think of it this way: if artificial insemination was good enough for Baby Jesus, it can work for others. And gosh golly, some families with kids would like to get married. Why stop them?

Try This: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_doesn't_ explain_art

Don't believe everything you're told :-)

Mutations can be negative and positive - consider sickle cell anemia. its 'negative' unless there's lots of malaria in your area, in which case it's positive!

Read more at the Most mutations are harmful Evowiki page.

Oh - and evowiki catalogues (and rebuts) most creationist arguments if you want to read up on them!

And I don't think the point of evolution is to create humans. I simply ask the question. Given the two types of evolution we teach, how do they explain the differences in how humans forked from this common ancestor?

1) Only one type of evolution is taught. It's split into two for the convenience of explaining things on small or large timescales (just like macro and micro economics are both just aspects of economics)

2) There isn't a specific explanation of why human evolution took a different path. It's just random. Sorry.

And having said debate numerous times over the years, no one has ever come close to answering that question once.

Hmmmn, sounds like you're making an argument from incredulity

The fossil "Nebraska Man" is found. Scientifically built up from a single tooth, 44 years later it was found that the tooth belonged to a pig.

You are obviously misinformed regarding the history of the Nebraska Man find. It was located in 1922, but even the man who found it and originally believed it to be a hominid tooth expressed doubts by 1925, and it was well-known to be a pig's tooth in 1928. That is not a 44-year time span, as you claim. That you are so misinformed on the subject suggests that you have not done any serious research in the study of human origins and the related hominid fossil finds.

News flash 1912: Missing Link Found

The fossil "Piltdown Man" is found. Remains claimed to be 500,000 years old. Cited for decades as proof of evolution. Over 500 doctoral dissertations were written. In 1956 the hoax was revealed. Scientifically built up from a jawbone, it was found that the jawbone belonged to a modem ape.

This again demonstrates a lack of research. It is true that Piltdown Man was a hoax, and it did take some time to expose it, but that is because very few scientists were allowed to examine the find until the mid 1950s. Moreover, it appears as though you are drawing research from known creationist falsehoods. I have attempted to locate even a fraction of the "over 500 doctoral dissertations" written on Piltdown man, yet not one creationist who has made the claim has been able to reference a single one. In fact, I have discovered that there were very likely no dissertations written on the subject at all (please feel free to correct me if you have a reference to an actual doctoral dissertation).

News flash ~1900: Missing Link Found

The fossil "Neanderthal Man" is found. Over 40 years later it was discovered that the skeleton was from an old man that suffered from severe arthritis.

This is completely false. No mainstream researcher has drawn such a conclusion.

"Lucy" turned out to be a chimpanzee

This claim is also false. It appears that you are obtaining information from either Kent Hovind or Jack Chick. Neither are a reliable source of information on the subject of evolution.

"New Guinea Man" turned out to be from 1970

New Guinea Man is approximately 5000 years old, and was never believed to be anything other than a modern human. It has never been presented as a transitional form.

"Peking Man" claimed to be 500,00 years old and all evidence disappeared

It appears obvious now that you have taken your information from Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" tract. You should be aware that Big Daddy is filled with factual errors and blatant misrepresentations, and constructing an argument based upon the information found in that tract will not yeild a convincing case. Information based upon Peking Man that is not a complete fabrication can be found here.

You're just not getting it, are you?
Oh well...while you continue to complain, some of us with a little less cynicism will keep an eye out for more news. This has a good chance at improving the quality of life in the third world considerably.

Oh, and for you: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Invincible_Ignoran ce

I'm not sure I agree. Creationism seems to be the "traditional" God creation myth from the Bible. I think "intelligent design" advocates could arguably be a bit more enlightened. Consider the following argument.
[snip AI argument]

In the end, ID removed from explicit creationism is vacuous. There is at most a trivial amount of science to it. When formalized, it falls apart. Heck, even when examined critically (yet short of formalization,) it falls apart.

Cheers,
Craig

Seriously, I've read/heard such claims, probably from creationists with anti-evolution agendas. After all, Karl Marx was such an admirer that he offered to dedicate volume 2 of Das Kapital to Darwin. Carleton Coon's popular 1962 book The Origin of Races (I'm not making that title up) claimed five major human races evolved independently, with "black people" evolving last.

Interesting (IMO) related links:

• Abusive Ad Hominem page on EvoWiki.
• Ever Since Darwin by Stephen Jay Gould.

hey, that's a cool site. I liked this: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Category:Fallacies .
is it your site?

I'll step in just for giggles: Category Error

I am so sick of this lame argument being used against creationists.
ie, that religion & science wrt creation are incompatible.
You are the sort of guy that would believe if you had enough sand and lightning strikes (billions of them of course), you would get a Pentium microprocessor.
God clearly says he enjoys us working out the mechanics of what he intelligently created.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Many_famous_scient ists_were_creationists

If God created the initial rules and mechanics of life; How does this oppose science? All science is doing, is reverse engineering. It's like someone gave you a PC with an OS installed, but no instructions on how to use it. So you spend your life working out how it works. You propose theories, test them. You see if you can replicate them and apply your knowledge to create other things.
Again, how does this oppose religion/existance of God?
Evolution is a religion in itself used to try and justify a Godless existance, in some vain hope that you will not be personably answerable to your creator.
Good Luck!

Here's some fuel for the fire.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Carbon_dating_give s_inaccurate_results

What am I left with, you ask? What I'm left with, my friend, is a Wikipedia entry that has been modified to fit the worldview of an atheist. Also, I'm left with several thousand other sources around the web (even atheistic ones!) that cite biogenesis as a law. For example, here's another atheistic one that, while it tries to discredit it, still acknowledges it as a law. What are you going to do, modify that one to fit your worldview also?

I like this. You're scrambling to rewrite anything written that doesn't fit your opinion. And that isn't science, that's censoring an opposing view.

Now, let's watch a decent US Education shred your argument without even breaking a sweat ;) :

1. You primarily employ abusive ad hominem ("Fundies," "extremists," "nonsense") (see: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Name_Calling) rather than acknowledging the character, content, and depth of your opponent's argument and providing persuasive counterpoint and example.

2. You employ the "false choice" fallacy ("cannot have it both ways") (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_choice).

3. You accept the line that literalism itself is necessarily a constrained form of conservatism, rather than interpreting text for its full nuance, breadth, and depth.

4. "At some point the states and Congress are going to have to tell the religious anti-science crowd that they do not have the right to trash science education, or the US is going to enter its decline, and this time the rising powers are going to find it in their best interests to keep scientists away from American universities and research."

Your proposed solution fails my reasonable man test; furthermore, by failing to be explicit it implies suppression of speech and freedom of religion.

Regardless what you believe or don't believe about religion, creation, etc., you ought to recognize that evolution is not a proved fact -- it's theory, taken by different people to apply to different spheres of study (biological evolution, special evolution, micro, macro, etc.).

The controversial point of evolutionary theory is the highly unscientific claim that humans can soundly trace their origins back to a primordial soup of origins that are entirely consistent with overtly observable laws of physics. One need not be opposed to evolution to be inspired by the possibility that life as we know it emerged (and continues to emerge) according to the design of a higher intelligence. The fact that many humans are not very intelligent at all is not proof of the non-existence of higher intelligence; it merely proves the inscrutability of certain levers of higher intelligence.

The theory that life emerges as protozoa, or virii, or any other miniscule or molecular creature in any way that could survive the ravages of nature by a process of evolution toward greater degrees of organization, according to the laws of physics, without the intervention of pre-existing intelligence, fails the basic test of science: Reproducability.

Until you can show me that life can emerge from a naturally occurring (meaning under present or past conditions), non-living chemical mix, in a repeatable fashion, then it is not unreasonable to assume that life does not simply emerge from nothingness.

Now, if history is a guide, you will quietly ignore the many flaws I have successfully pointed out in your criticism, and instead change the subject or launch a counterattack.

Such is the mind of someone who lacks education; always attacking; rarely introspective; unconsiderate toward someone who may have a different opinion that would require you to think deeply, instead of reaching into the depths of your intellect to acknowledge and consider the many fascinating mysteries of this universe that science by itself is incapable of answering.

I hope that you will be the exception.

- your friendly neighborhood religionist

"Science is based on observed facts and natural mechanisms to explain those facts. To introduce supernatural or undefined mechanisms into an explanation is blatantly unscientific."

I absolutely agree with you. So, explain to me how a feather evolved? Here is as good an attempt at an explaination as any:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_feath ers

The "explanation" on this page is as good a description of intelligent design as it is of darwinian evolution:

"Feather development begins with an epidermal placode situated above a condensation of dermal cells which specifies the particular feather's location.

"From below, dermal cells work themselves upwards, forcing the epidermis into a finger-like projection called the papilla, or feather bud. Signaled by the dermis, the epidermal cells around the base of the papilla then sink down, creating an invagination called the lumen, or follicle cavity. Subsequent morphogenesis proceeds from the epidermal collar. Along its length, keratinoctyes proliferate and form barb ridges.

"These barb ridges are helically displaced as they grow, eventually making their way to the anterior midline and fusing to form the rachis ridge, which later becomes the feather rachis. Opposite the rachis ridge, new barb ridges spring out of the collar, these fusing with the rachis ridge anteriorly. On the barb ridges themselves, peripheral cells organize themselves into horizontal layers. Following the death of cells in the middle, those on either side become the paired barbules, with those more central fusing to become the ramus.

"Finally, the whole structure, which until this point has remained essentially tubular, opens up. The outer surface becomes the dorsal surface of the fully developed feather, and the interior becomes the ventral. It should now be clear precisely why the planar surfaces of scales and feathers are not homologous; scales develop from the anterior and posterior surfaces of the placode directly, feathers round-aboutly develop their surface from the inner and outer surfaces of the cylindrical collar.

Yes I remember this from high school AP biology.

I think the punchline was that RNA is autocatalytic (it can replicate itself whereas DNA cannot do so without RNA). Here is a somewhat unsatisfying Wikipedia article (more history than biology).

RNA also performs a multitude of functions in transcription & protein synthesis.

Retroviruses would probably be a good thing to look at for information.

who on gods green earth OBSERVED monkeys turning into humans.

If this response were a challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events which nobody alive today has witnessed.

turning into humans.

Actually, my religion can't be debunked by any theory, in that my religion is non-comittal. I specifically said in that post that "the parent, however, didn't say anything about the origin of life,". I didn't say that it's how life was created, but he's right in that evolution is observable.

On another note, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

#1. "Adaptation is NOT evolution." adaptation: Biology. An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.
Apparently you do not understand the biolgical definition of "adaptation." An adaptation is some change an organism has made to fit it's environment. It's not a process. It's caused by the process "natural selection" which is the mechanism for evolution.

Adaptation, evolution, and natural selection are not several distinct phenomena, like you seem to think. You're mistaking "evolution" for the term "macro-evolution" which involves speciation. Evolution does not have to create new species to be evolution.

Also, about us "never absolutely seen the emergence of a new species"... good job, idiot. I found that all in about 2 minutes. Not that I didn't already know you were wrong, I'm just saying, do a little research before you make these ridiculous claims.

As well as us not being sure what a species is, what the hell are you talking about? Biology. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. I think we're pretty sure what a species is. Even given various exceptions, it's not like we can't tell what's in a species with ease.

Not to mention the fact that it doesn't matter, as evolution does not have to entail speciation, as you wrongly believe.

And about whatever the Bible says: that's great! I don't care! Didn't I just say to leave your religion out of this? This has nothing to do with the Bible, or the origin of life for that matter.

It just has to do with my point, and the point of the original parent that evolution is observable and going on right now. It is. Accept it. Your religion will not come crashing to its feet, I promise, just stop making these ridiculous claims.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Eye_evolution links to some relevant papers.

If 80% aren't spherical one must ask why the other 20% are NOT.

Why even bother to ask why? If you come across something and you can't figure out how it could have occurred, just claim the event or process is the product of Intelligent Design .

Why spend year after tedious year engaging in reductionist scientific inquiry when you can just bail out immediately with an answer that cannot be falsified: Intelligent Design .

Worried that your invisible sky-ghost or imaginary all-powerful personal friend isn't getting the deferential worship He deserves in this age of secular humanism? Sneak your sky-ghost back into the schools and indoctrinate another generation of devout sheep with Intelligent Design .

Remember the "Argument from Personal Incredulity": if you're too thick to figure out how something works, it must be because no one can figure it out! Don't sweat it! Just explain it away by saying it was caused personally God^H^H^H an Intelligent Designer!

Don't waste time asking question or doing science! Just give credit to an Intelligent Designer and go back to sleep!

The dating of human and dinosaur remains has already gone through actual scientific investigation and is no longer in dispute by reputable scientists. The people who disagree are, at best, mistaken and have yet to see it, or at worst, religious zealots.

Your use of "explained away" in your last sentence is troubling. I get the feeling you're not a fan of actual scientific investigation when it debunks something you believe in.

...ever bothered to pick up a copy of Infinite Energy magazine?

Let us not forget Irving Langmuir's symptoms of pathological science:

The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

Theories outside the field's paradigm are suggested.

Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.

The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Nicholas Turro has added:

The remarkable result is specific for a "special" system.

Some special technique or equipment is involved.

The result requires a stunning departure from the paradigms that fully determine results in all other comparable systems, including those studied by the authors.

Some of the common traits seen by the Infinite Energy crowd are summed up nicely by Martin Gardner:

He considers himself a genius.

He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads.

He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against.

He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and best established theories.

He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.

You don't see the last one, and you get only a taste of the first one, but I'd say your vitriolic comment is covers the rest rather well here.

I was going to add some other good tell-tale signs, but a little Googling has turned up a nice page.

Please note Bubba that it was over four months between when the DoE decided to look again at cold fusion and when Mallove was murdered. This may constitute "shortly after" in a cosmic sense, but your statment is ignorant and misleading. I assume you either spout it in a deliberate attempt to mislead, or you probably heard it secondhand and didn't bother to verify it (both qualities, by the way, the "infinite" and/or "free" energy crowd have in abundance).

By the way, did you know that Art Carney, the great comedian, died on November 9 2003: THREE DAYS AFTER THE DoE COLD FUSION MEETING!

Coincidence? I think not.

Humans drive cars and cars are driven by humans. Without a car, humans can't drive. Without a human, cars cannot be driven. Since we have such an irreducibly complex system, we must therefore conclude that humans and cars were created at the same time.

What are you talking about? Do you have any idea what an irreducibly complex system is? How about Natural Selection? (The basis of the theory of evolution.)

I'm sure you were trying to make a point with that statement, but I'm not sure what that point might be as your analogy is neither self consistent nor relevant to my post...

Just a theory? You're right! However, you're also very, very wrong.

Just a theory? You're right! However, you're also very, very wrong.

Just a theory? You're right! However, you're also very, very wrong.

(-1 Offtopic :-)