They started to decrease after the curse with Adam, the exception of course Methuselah who just out lived Adam in age and died the year the flood came.
I've been to this place and in the exit stairway there is a picture of the earth on each level showing Australia in the center, but they DONT HAVDE NEW ZEALAND!!!! wtf. That is very annoying. They know about New Zealand because they are there too. How could they leave it out:-(
Speak for yourself, you may be evolved from hairy *apes but I am made in the image of God with rights given only to a human. You are no better than a "dam dirty ape" so please dont try to drag me down to what you want to be.
Rabbits are a very bad idea. They were a great pest in Australia and New Zealand, they stripped clear alot of land. Then Australia got a rabbit virus which killed alot of rabbits. The NZ government band the import of the virus to kill the rabbits in NZ because they feared once it was loose it couldn't stop it killing the native birds. (no study was yet to carried out to test if it could jump spices) Then after about a month, the virus magically (air new zealand/quantus) jumped over the ditch (tasman sea) and then the rabbit plage was over in a few weeks. It was great for the framers and no native kiwis or birds died. NZ gov was a bit pissed off:-P
I like elephants idea, they wont go wild due to slow breeding, we already have cammles in the outback. and if they get too popular like the kangaroos we would soon see them in the meet section of Coles/Woolworths (local super markets).
We all know that distance galaxies are red shifted, but how many of you know they are quantization of the red shifts.
This means that the galaxies are placed at regular intervals of 2Myr in distance. That pattern can only been seen if we were at the center of the universe. If you move earth to 2Myrs in either direction then the pattern is not visible.
So the pattern suggest that Earth is in a unique position in a boundary based universe. (Big Bang doesn't have boundarys due it a 3d surface on the 4d hypersphere, but I know someone will disagree with on me on that)
But the ultimate answer of "Is the earth special" is Yes, because it has me. (drum sounds:-) ) (thank you folks, I'll be here all day long)
I will try and debate with you, but from previous experience I'm pretty sure what will happen. It will get to a point where I will say, that doesn't exist any more, or that evolved away and we don't see it, and you'll say aha!, so you don't know it all, it was clearly god.:p
Yeah, most likly something like that will happen. I can assume neither one of us will change our minds/opinions on the subject matter. But I will continue because like a parable "Iron sharpens iron", with out someone (with knowledge) attacking what I "believe" I would find it more difficult to expand my mind for more understanding and knowledge. I find that when someone attacks what I believe I have motivation to defend it and therefor learn new things. (e.g. I will have to read up on Lipids)
But this disregards the fact that we don't need to know all the answers, we just need to use the simplest conclusion by extrapolating from known data.
I think you might be trying to refer to Occam's razor, where the theory requiring the least amount of assumptions is the preferred theory.
And god is not a simple conclusion because then we are just asking who created god.
Actually I always hear the opposite complain when "God" is "used to explain everything". Hence the "simple" solution.
To the argument of who created God, I believe is not a question which makes sense as you are asserting in the question a messurment of time into someone which exists outside of time. (E.g. if time was a 2D plane instead of viewed as a 1D line of past/present/future how you say how old you were?), hence by asking an entity which exists outside of time how old he is, how would you answer that?
Lets look at the theory of cause and effect. A "effect" has a cause. Hence the universe existence would have a "cause" (unless you are prescribing the steady state model). The "cause" can not have been made from any physical / energy source because you are then relying on something's own existence to explain how it came to being. Which violates the no creation of energy law of the universe. Oh please dont try to say quantum fluctuation of virtual particles as that is one big cop out of an answer. (i.e. what created the energy again) The "theory" which requires less assumptions is creation of a universe by an (super) intelligent being. The theory of the big bang requires many adhoc assumptions to explain each stage the BB when though. Occam's razor would favor a creationist. (Read the book Dismantling the big bang for more details in that.)
I have studied some biochemistry in university, I know how complex a modern cell is. The first cell could easily have been a simple replicator inside a lipid membrane.
This is where the argument of where you would say "it doesn't exist anymore" would come in. Please define what "simple" is when it comes to replicators. Are you referring to crystal like structures or a fully blown dna reading machine? Having a crystal like structure doesn't produce the machinery to replicate, it can self assemble into a organised shape predestined by it's chemical properties. Although these structures show highly ordered arrangements, but all they ever be are structures align to there chemical nature. The simplest self replicating thing I've read about is an artificial self replicating hex like structure that was on slashdot about 2 months ago, which could replicate by heating the solution then cooling it down again. This needs many human interferences for it to be self replicating. E.g. the right sollution, and heating cycle. Again this artificial thing couldn't become more complex due it's shape being linked to it's chemical properties.
I will try and debate with you, but from previous experience I'm pretty sure what will happen. It will get to a point where I will say, that doesn't exist any more, or that evolved away and we don't see it, and you'll say aha!, so you don't know it all, it was clearly god.:p
Yeah, most likly something like that will happen. I can assume neither one of us will change our minds/opinions on the subject matter. But I will continue because like a parable "Iron sharpens iron", with out someone (with knowledge) attacking what I "believe" I would find it more difficult to expand my mind for more understanding and knowledge. I find that when someone attacks what I believe I have motivation to defend it and therefor learn new things. (e.g. I will have to read up on Lipids)
But this disregards the fact that we don't need to know all the answers, we just need to use the simplest conclusion by extrapolating from known data.
Well thats not necessarily a correct methodology, but I am just being a bit pedantic.
And god is not a simple conclusion because then we are just asking who created god.
Actually I always hear the opposite complain when "God" is "used to explain everything". Hence the "simple" solution. To the argument of who created God:
As a basic formula of cause and effect, (cause leads to effect), for the universe to exist it must have a cause. Trying to invoke a physical force, e.g. energy or any type of matter will not do for what then created that?. For the universe to be created you will need something/(someone) to be the cause for the effect. An example of God's not being part of space/time is his ability to tell the future. Only when you are outside the universe (s/t) can you do that. So when it comes to the big bang, the theory leads to strings then to membranes, all of which has no physical evidence and still leads to the question what created the strings/ membranes and all the energy required therein as energy can not be created or destroyed.
Finally as to who created God, I dont know if that question makes sence because you are then trying to apply our time view onto someone who doesn't exist in that time view/space. Hence the question being N/A. Oh please dont try to say quantum fluctuation of virtual particles as that is one big cop out of an answer. (i.e. what created the energy again)
I have studied some biochemistry in university, I know how complex a modern cell is. The first cell could easily have been a simple replicator inside a lipid membrane.
Please define what "simple" is when it comes to replicators. Having a crystal like sturture doesn't produce the machinery to replicate, it can self assemble into a organised shape predestined by it's chemical properties. The simplest self replicating thing I personally know of is an artificial self replicating hex like structure that was on slashdot about 2 months ago, which could replicate by heating the solution then cooling it down again.
The replication from organic things comes from it's dna chain which it's assembly it not related to it chemical properties. For example the sentence: "To be or not to be", does not make any sense, all it is, is a collection of symbols stringed together, the shape of the letters give not relevance to the next symbol in the sentence nor to its ultimate meaning. It's only when a decoder it used (English) can we understand the sentence and get information out of it. Hence any "simple" replication structure you are thinking of would be a crystal structure which can have order by not information, all they will ever be is crystal like in structure.
Lipids can naturally and spontaneously form cell like enclosures all on their own.
Ok, I believe you on this, (I am ignorant on whats Lipids are) this would be easily testable. (put Lipids together and see them cl
The first cell wasn't produced by randomness, that's clearly impossible, it's an incremental process. You've fallen into the usual creationists argument that cells sprang forth from nothing.
Excuse me but you just contradicted yourself. We all know abio can't happen, and waving a magic wand saying it was chunks of proteins instead of single amino acids where used to make the "first" cell is highly dishonest. Your argument there is saying cars dont form by themselves atom by atom, it's all the interconnected parts that form together to make a car. You are still left with the position of explaining in your version of abio of how all the components form into anything that could self replicate yet alone how all thoses required components could form at all. You require a lot of faith to make that claim which lacks evidence for. You've fallen for a common athest argument that the first cell was a simple thing, yet not knowing how incredibly complex the simplest of cells are. There is no incremental process for something which are self replicate.
The other mistake in your argument is that something can "evol" into gaining features which are not there. This goes against chemical & biological science. Chemical Sciences: any solution will break down into it's low state where everything is mixed. If you looked at the mulla gray experiments, you will see that although proteins/acids are created, they are created in a toxic environment, there is no chance for any of the proteins to form chains. There are no RNA machines to process the DNA either. This has been 50/60 years now and the more complex you get the more it shows that life only comes from life, not from chemicals. DNA is highly reactive and easily breaks down. Biological Sciences: Every day there are over 1 million mutations happening in each of your cell's DNA strains. The first cell must have all the machinery already set up to handle all the damage from the beginning. (even more so since you can't invoke a cell wall yet) Mutations do not cause an increase in complexity, Every occurrence observed has shown either no visible effect or harmful effect* * over 10000 mutations shown in the human body which causes cancers/liver failures/brain tumours etc... with a handful of mutations which destroy functionally which can have an advantage. (e.g. whites can drink milk)
If you study a cell there's clearly lots of different bits joined together that could easily have been separate pieces.
Can I sell you a car, it's all dissemble but it got all the components of a car. You will need to explain how those components all assemble themselves in the correct order encoded in the dna strain with all the machinery able to decode it alongside all the protection machines and power supply machines for it to be functional. Remember, if you connect a piston to a crankshalf, you still do not have a car! (or anything that moves).
And please don't refer to anything to do with creationism as science. If you take the bible literally, you are an enemy of science.
And please dont refer to anything to do with evolution as science, it's demonstrated to not work. all biological phenomenons do not require that unscientific theory. I take observation evidence in the bible literary, instead of you who would rather believe in the miracles of evolution despite all observation science telling otherwise.
Religion is just a method created by the brain to deal with the fact that humans are aware of their own mortality. Weak people who can't deal with this fact hide behind religion.
Shooting the messenger? let me take another view of this: Evolution is just a method created by the brain to deal with the fact that humans are aware of their own mortality and do not want to be accountable for their actions from their maker.
I am a creationist, (I am not liked if you look at my karma). I have a few comments about your post. First: Randomness can not generate the first cell (abiogenesis) . Even the hypothetical of 256 genes using the probability of left vs right handed proteins makes the changes of that "prefect" cell (which is actually too weak to survive) have the odds of 10^3070. The chemical assembly of the cell is not linked to the chemical properties of the cell. Evolution has the issues with science. (I've talked about mutations & natural selection is my history)
Third: Genesis 1 & 2 are to be read literally. Genesis reads with specific ordering. It is not a poem, It is not a allegory, it's not a parable. It is written as a observation recording of what happen. It is therefore to be read as history. But lets use scripture to check this out. Genesis 1 uses ordeal numbers with it days. Day One Day Twom Day three. The only other part in the bible that matches it's structure is in numbers ch 17, where it talked about day one, day two day three where it was talking about some jewish thing I can't remember. That is read has fact/history and not as a poem, so dont try to pick and choose what you want to believe.
How do the people in the bible thought about Gen 1?
In exodus, in the 10 commandments, Rememberer the 7th day to keep it holy.. (It's referencing to a literal 24 hour day, not periods like muslems, not billion of years like evolutionists. Jesus say if you don't believe Moses then you wouldn't believe me (Moses written the tora (first 5 books of bible) to my memory)
To others reading this post: If any one has issues thinking there is a "religion" vs "science" instead of
"creation world view" vs "evolution world view" "creation science" vs "evolution science"
may I suggest http://creation.com/ and read up on what is fact and what is story telling, instead of just blindly trying to bash reglious groups (even the wrong muslims) because you think there are wrong. When you hear only one side of the story you will think that is correct until the other side gets a chance to speak.
I define the definitions so that we all speak the same language. If you asked me did I believe that creatures changed i would say yes. But you will take that as yes to evolution.
A clear definition is required because at the moment evolution is thought of as "things changing". But this concept of what evolution is, is so broad that it will make me an evolutionist. Heres the problem, Evolution takes the best of natural selection and mutations into itself and claim it has it's own. I.e. you see fenches in the geloipus islands with there difference beaks so evolution is true. So most people dont see is that evolution takes a truth (NS & Mutations) and then mixes in a lie of pure fantasy. It's a bait and switch.
Hence be defining what evolution is, which is separate from it's underlying theories, i hope to show to you the fallacy of it while maintining true "operational" science. Basically sperating the myths and lies from the truth.
So hence for the purpose to facilitate this conversation, I define evolution as which you can understand which is what it is being allocated as doing without it steal away from real theories.
So I dont mean to be rude but speak my language please. because your beliefs are in a theory that claims alot and uses deceit to pull of the magic of it and until we understand each others point view clearly, we would just get no where.
I am a creationist. We know mutations happen. To you will need to prove that mutations are good. I purpose you walk into the fukushima plant and just stand there for 30 mins. Once you turn green when ever you get anger, you will have proved me wrong.
But if you get sick from liver failures, and pass on cancers to your childern's childrens children, then I will be proven right.
The problem with mutations is that they cause damage to a working function. There are 10,000 known mutations that causes cancers, tumours, and blood diseces, and only a hand full of mutations that are beneficial (all of them breaking a working function which doesn't show evolution).
If you want to believe in evolution, please know the facts before blindly believing in the impossible and then making fun of people of different views than yours.
Natural Selection (and maybe mutations) are the main methods for new species. (Definitions: Species: are creatures who dont bread with each other
Kind: Not sure how to describe it, basically how you classify something to a 8yr old, (dog, fish, horse) )
These fish are the same "Kind", Fish, theses are still the same "Species". A "Kind" contains lots of variations within itself (DNA) where the creature can be fine tune to the enviroment. That process called natural selection.
An example of this is Dogs and Wolfs. Chiwawas and great danes come of wolfs. The Wolf had the information for all these species within the K9 "Kind" The Chiawawas and great danes are different species but they are all dogs, but the Chiawawa & GD are more specified than the wolf meaning you can't get the wolf from the chiawawa, but you can get the chiawawa from the wolf. So a more specified (selected) creature doesn't show evolution, as it shows a decrease in the variation of the host. It is not evolved because it has less variations (hence harder to adapt to new enviroments) than the parent kind.
In the fish, the Mutated fish grow slower and is only found near the hudson where it's mutation gives a better advantage than the flaws it brings. Each is better suited to its enviroment. But having something broken is not a sign a evolution. evolution (Goo to you via zoo) needs increases in structures and features, not things breaking.
Lets do a car analogy, I took a brick, though it in your car window, it is now smashed up so you can't see, you will now have to drive slower and so you now dont skid as much. this only works in snowy (PCB) areas but it shows your car has evolved by having a smashed up window. I bet you wont thank anyone that tests that out. But this is the BS that gets passed as evolution all the time. Something that breaks doesn't show evolution. Something that changes doesn't show evolution (according to how lazy you define evolution). Only new features could explain Evolution which this case doesn't show. PCB resistances via broken genes I argue isn't a "new feature", but a smashed window.
Things we agree on?
Each fish are better suited to it's environment.
things we dont agree on:
These mutations dont show evolution (things breaking dont show "Goo to you via zoo" evolution)
The hudson fish are "weaker" because they can't survive in the wild (as good as others)
Evolution causes "specification/speciation". The theory of Evol is not needed for speciation. NS & Mutations do that already.
So my remark stands that claiming that a gene broken is "evolution" (goo to you type) is bad science. (Please dont try to argue that simply changing is evolution, as no creationist argues that creatures change. Natural Selection & Mutations are real science that can be observed in the lab and repeated, for ~400 years. The "goo to you via zoo" version of "evolution" is not observable and makes no predictions. See the great dawkins being stump when ask what causes evolution (play the video) http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again )
Basically the fish are an example of mutations and natural selection. The damage genes in the fish make it better suited to it's environment but it doesn't show it getting more complex, actually the opposite, a weaker fish. But you dont get published without towing the line of Evolution. Notice how the mutations are limited to the Hudson area. The fish are less fit than the wild fish in the oceans.
(I define evolution as change going up hill, or as to quote a catch parse, "goo to you via zoo". I do not defined it as "things changes", as Natural Selection & Mutations cover that area already.)
Of course I will be modded down as always, I just thought that a different view should be presented, take it or leave it, its up to you.
Your views: I am an animal and to all purposes a "monkey". There is nothing wrong in killing a monkey or pig, enslaving horses and sheep, or fellow humans.
And how does evolution reach that conclusion?
It teaches it by saying survival of the fittest. if an animal can kill another animal, and we are only animal then logically there is nothing wrong in it.
My view is that when evolution has been misused as a rationalization for murder and genocide, the abuser has in additional made the claim that they are somehow better than the other class of humans.
It's very easy to "misuse" evolution as it's logical conclusion is just that view point. Charles thought niggers were more like apes, and whites where more evolved than blacks. This is why evol isn't an inert idea. It is the building block of your entire world view. Who are you, what you are worth, what you can do to others. It wasn't until operational science of DNA proved otherwise.
There is an exceptionalism that allows them to rationalize the murder of those they wish while simultaneously preserving their own status among the living.
Yeah, it's an easy jump depending on your world view.
Even the Israelis have in the Bible misused their perceived status as special people of God to kill rival peoples.
I assumed you are talking about when the Jews crossed over to Israel. I am a bit weak in the theory of this area but to what I can recall about this history is that land was reserved for the Jews. Satan knowing that the "Christ" was promised to come from the line of Abraham (Jews) setup several populations in the area. Note that when the Moses told 12 jew to cross the river and check out the land, 2 reported it was ripe for the taking, 10 reported that there were giants in the land. The nephilim where around before the flood, they were gaints (about 1.5 story house) and they where the cross breed between a angle (fallen angel) and a woman. The flood killed all the Nephilims. The giants in the land was just another attempt to thawt God's plan. Hence God said to kill theses people as they were the mortal enemies of the jews. Now when the Jews where taking city and after city the neighbours took noticed of theses Jews taking all the citys to the south so this one city send 3 officials to go out and talk to the Jews and make a deal with them. The jews came across these 3 people saying they where from a far away city far up north, they where walking for many days to get here and so they offered a peice deal with the jews. The leader thought that this city was too far away (weeks away) so they made a piece tearty with them. The Jews then found the city was just over the hill!. lol, they were tricked but God would keep there promised so that city was speared.
Many generations later, a king of israel when and kill some of the men of that city. That caused a 7yr drought on the land, the jews asked, etf why is there a drought, God said your king killed some of these people. The end result of the king's own sons being put to death and left rotting on the hill side.
Abio can't explain anything. the more it tries the more you relieased Life only comes from life. The more real you get, the impossible it becomes. hence an evolutionist needs faith that this happen because they know it's impossible. Go ahead, look at the chemistry experaments, They can now produce, in only 12 steps each being carefully filtered, 2 types of amino acids for RNA. (what a joke.)
I find it interesting that you claim that God cannot create life via the mechanism of abiogenesis. Perhaps you ought to tell him more of what he can or cannot do.
You dont at all find it odd that you try to use a theory that doesn't use God at all? And the only reason to include God is because it's chemically and phyiscally / statisticall
It's not made out of whole cloth, but based on what we actually see in nature. Further, the theory of evolution doesn't preclude a creator who intentionally uses evolution as their means of biological creation. A "creator line of thinking" is neither required nor rejected.
It is fundamentally opposed to any creator. There is no need for God in evolution.
On matters of physical theory and evidence, you have the possibility of being right. On this matter of logic, you do not. Theories do not have a need for anything, they are merely inert ideas.
On this matter we will just have to agree to disagree. This theory is not an inert idea, it is the basis of the building blocks of your entire world view. this one point will effect how you measure yourself and other people around you. For example,
Your views: I am an animal and to all purposes a "monkey". There is nothing wrong in killing a monkey or pig, enslaving horses and sheep, or fellow humans. Germans fell for the view the jews where not true humans but less evolved sub humans (just like black people). There is no right or wrong, as they are only chemicals in your brain, there is no logic you can use to say stealing is wrong as you would then be trying to force your morals onto me. hence might is right. You entire existence is a mistake of nature on it's way to something better. (somehow, you still havn't told how yet.)
My views: I am a creature created in the image of God. I have a soul and I am above the animals in the world. I have a purpose (basically to entertain God), and I have a intrinsic value attached to me because I am human. All humans are made in the image of God so everyone has a significants attached to them. I am also flawed and done wrong, but I was also brought and saved from my wrongness with a large price. Hence I know I am deeply valued. I view the world as decaying away, as the evidence with NS & Mutations shows as observed.
Second, this is the sort of nonsense that eventually destroyed Islamic culture as a reasoning culture. They got a 13th century religious nut that decided no theory was valid, if it didn't elevate God to the level of prime mover. For example, Ghazali claimed that all causal events were the result of direct intervention by God. These events only seemed have a pattern because God's will is rational and consistent.
Islam is evil. Please dont try to drag this conversation into that direction unless you read up the history is islam (see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ if you really want to know more about it)
But even if the assertion above is completely true, it still doesn't mean that theories explaining how God's will operates to us have to require God or even are capable of requiring God. Ghazali excluded any attempt at physical theory which didn't evoke God, but he never had a good reason for doing so.
But let's rephrase evolution so that it meets your sensibilities.
Ok, lets try
God created the universe and its laws.
Agreed
He also created life on a planet called Earth through some mechanism which is beyond the scope of evolution
He spoke them into existence, Since the universe is a digital simulation, (computer program/ a thought of God maybe?) That would be possible then.
(but not beyond the scope of a theory called "abiogenesis") to explain.
Abio can't explain anything. the more it tries the more you relieased Life only comes from life. The more real you get, the impossible it becomes. hence an evolutionist needs faith that this happen because they know it's impossible. Go ahead, look at the chemistry experaments, They can now pr
Arghh!!!, all the parts of the engine are involved in the motion of the machine!!! We were talking about a "process/theory" in the above. Not something real and works;-) like a mechanical machine!.
Don't know why you're frustrated. A machine implements a process and one can reverse engineer the process handily given a working machine. So the distinction is not important.
And that's the thing about evolution. We've come to the stage where not only do we have a model with copious evidence, but we've built working programs that implement the basic algorithm of evolution to do useful stuff.
I was frustrated because you just used an analogy of a engine, which has working parts working together to achieve an outcome with something which all parts work against to achieve the outcome. Building a simulation in a computer which by passes all the flaws in the theory doesn't prove the theory. With all your "evidence", please give 1, just 1 example of information gain where it produces a working thing. even if its only a 1 stage thing and not a interconnected multistage component like how hemoglobin ( red blood) is a structure with over 1000 protiens in it. which does nothing... until it's calved up by another protiens which leaves ~900protiens in it, then another calves it to 800, then another calves it to ~512 i think. each stage is usless until the end produce is produced. Can you provide me with anything near like what I showed above, we know you can't.
Once again evolution isn't just inherited traits, natural selection, and mutation. It's the combination of these three aspects into something greater than the components.
I guess the expression, pictures or it didn't happen wouldn't change your mind either. Again you have showing faith in a theory without the evidence. I've shown out NS works against evol, and mutations, the only changing agent in town also works vastly against evol, NS is trying hard to not let the creature die. Thats why you get blind fish in dark caves, the moment NS can't filter it, things to to sh*t. Again you either need to provide evidence of information increase, i.e. how the information got there. or admit you believing by faith that how it works.
As to your comments about "irreducible complexity", I already noted a way to convert an irreducibly complex internal combustion engine into an irreducibly complex jet engine. Rather than incrementally take things away from the engine, I incrementally added things to turn it into a reducibly complex thing. And with enough stuff added, I got to a point where I could reduce the thing either to an internal combustion engine or a jet engine.
Again with that story you will have to tell me why each and every piece of the jet was added to a internal combustion engine while still giving an advantage to the internal combustion engine. I.e. Why hasn't Ford and Toyota, added half a jet engine to each of their lastest cars? It's because it will not proved any advantage until the entire thing is there, and conversely slow and weigh down the car for no reason making and unneeded cost to the production of the car.
So can you answer my question, How do you get evolution from increase information? Or atleast admit you take it by faith that evol is real, which effectively makes it a supernatural explanation and not "real (operational) science".
Oh yes, I can do this. First, let's consider the situation with mutation and no natural selection. The latter implies that every organism, no matter how messed up, managed to pass its traits on to the next generation. End result is going to be perfect noise asymptotically (that is, it approaches perfect noise as the number of generations gets large).
Selection turns that noise into structure and we can even quantify how much information gets created in the pro
I disagree, the algorithm doesn't explain the gain. and all sub components of that algorithm works against it and explain all change already observed. How does the whole of the parts be not only greater than the sum of the parts but also change polarity?
Lot of systems work that way. For example, your internal combustion engine and jet engines of a previous example. Start taking parts away and pretty soon you have a bunch of metal, not a working engine.
Arghh!!!, all the parts of the engine are involved in the motion of the machine!!! We were talking about a "process/theory" in the above. Not something real and works;-) like a mechanical machine!. If you are trying to make a scenario with an engine, any engine, in this scenario to what I said above about how all of the components work against the outcome wanted. It would be like a car with NO engine, with only a brakes to speed it up and parachute to control its direction. both parts do not make this theoretical car move forwards, both will hinder it. And thats what evol is, something which all parts move in the opposite direction of the direction wanted. So the evolution train is coming, but only in the wrong direction.
Now, in a physical machine, the whole of the parts combine into a greater than sum net positive. Now any engine would be a perfect example of something called irreducible complexity. IC means you can't take away anything or the thing doesn't work. I got a lovly movie of the flagellum at home, it talks about 40 different proteins, the nearest evol have to this is a needle jet noise structure which has only 12 of the proteins in it. Again they suffer from IC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnSxRYx82Gk
Thus in the theory of Evol, you can't have a halve functioning foo() organ until it actually foos(). Any attempt to evol a foo() organ will result in a non function organ. Natural Selection will remove the foo as best as it can. Do you have a foo organ? Do any human have a foo organ? So irreducible complexity also works forwards to block any improvements required anything more than a 3 point mutation. (it took 35,000 generations for a bacteria over 30yrs to mutate a 3 point spot mutated broken switch for processing food in another environment (again thats devolving, just letting you know the scale of the problem here for evols.))
Again leading to the problem of where the information comes from. How can you jump the hurdle when you are push back from it?
You can test this out for yourself, make a simple ant food game where ants eat the food. You can cheat by evolving the ants to a level where they can see the food infront of them. once you got that up and running, take the perfect ant and make it the only ant in the world. (x100). change the algorthem so that only the ants that collect enough food goes on to have children. make each ant breed with another and add a mutation in, lets say 90% remain on, and add 10% (less fit) new only being a mixture of the existing ants. you will then see that the mutations build up in the entire populations until the point where it crashes in on itself. (you can not make perfect copies of the original perfect ant). Here you will see NS block the less fit. and mutations building up in the population.
We can actually demonstrate this phenomena by making the mutation rate rather high. A low mutation rate combined with selection doesn't exhibit the above behavior.
Yeah, that would do it as well. But I fear you dont see my point about how you must have faith for evolution to work as it's own parts work against it. All of biology can be explained without it. Its only purpose is to reject the creator line of thinking which is not unscientific. If something has specified complexity, can't/very unlikely come about naturally, and des
Slashdot Mirror
"dying, you shall die" is the literal Hebrew translation.
If you want a creationist analysis of the ages, here is a good link http://creation.com/living-for-900-years
Cheers.
They started to decrease after the curse with Adam, the exception of course Methuselah who just out lived Adam in age and died the year the flood came.
I've been to this place and in the exit stairway there is a picture of the earth on each level showing Australia in the center, but they DONT HAVDE NEW ZEALAND!!!! wtf. That is very annoying. They know about New Zealand because they are there too. How could they leave it out :-(
(Note: This was back in 2010)
Speak for yourself, you may be evolved from hairy *apes but I am made in the image of God with rights given only to a human. You are no better than a "dam dirty ape" so please dont try to drag me down to what you want to be.
Cheers
*ape, what ever you call your momma. :-P
Transparent Aluminum is already invented. I have a vague memory of it on slashdot because of the link to Star Trek 4.
quick google will show this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727130814.htm
You can release them in Australia, cause there are dingos to eat them.
Just don't do that in New Zealand, we got enough troubles with ferrets and stokes and rats as it is killing the flightless bird population.
Rabbits are a very bad idea. They were a great pest in Australia and New Zealand, they stripped clear alot of land. Then Australia got a rabbit virus which killed alot of rabbits. The NZ government band the import of the virus to kill the rabbits in NZ because they feared once it was loose it couldn't stop it killing the native birds. (no study was yet to carried out to test if it could jump spices) Then after about a month, the virus magically (air new zealand/quantus) jumped over the ditch (tasman sea) and then the rabbit plage was over in a few weeks. It was great for the framers and no native kiwis or birds died. NZ gov was a bit pissed off :-P
I like elephants idea, they wont go wild due to slow breeding, we already have cammles in the outback. and if they get too popular like the kangaroos we would soon see them in the meet section of Coles/Woolworths (local super markets).
"The chemists hope their creation will help shed light on the origins of life"
<sarcastic>Warning, these people are not true scientists as they believe in intelligently design creation with their cell's membrane. </sarcastic>
meh, I got no karma points to burn.
You have to check for any lost wallets/purses, safety boxes that hold jewels and return them to their rightful errr salvager. :-)
I would suggest everyone start wearing Burkas.
The only down side to that is that it might attract some more attention as well since I am a man.
No plan is perfect :-(
see there own passwords in the list?
* guilty :-(
We all know that distance galaxies are red shifted, but how many of you know they are quantization of the red shifts.
This means that the galaxies are placed at regular intervals of 2Myr in distance. That pattern can only been seen if we were at the center of the universe. If you move earth to 2Myrs in either direction then the pattern is not visible.
So the pattern suggest that Earth is in a unique position in a boundary based universe.
(Big Bang doesn't have boundarys due it a 3d surface on the 4d hypersphere, but I know someone will disagree with on me on that)
But the ultimate answer of "Is the earth special" is Yes, because it has me. (drum sounds :-) )
(thank you folks, I'll be here all day long)
I will try and debate with you, but from previous experience I'm pretty sure what will happen. It will get to a point where I will say, that doesn't exist any more, or that evolved away and we don't see it, and you'll say aha!, so you don't know it all, it was clearly god. :p
Yeah, most likly something like that will happen. I can assume neither one of us will change our minds/opinions on the subject matter. But I will continue because like a parable "Iron sharpens iron", with out someone (with knowledge) attacking what I "believe" I would find it more difficult to expand my mind for more understanding and knowledge. I find that when someone attacks what I believe I have motivation to defend it and therefor learn new things. (e.g. I will have to read up on Lipids)
But this disregards the fact that we don't need to know all the answers, we just need to use the simplest conclusion by extrapolating from known data.
I think you might be trying to refer to Occam's razor, where the theory requiring the least amount of assumptions is the preferred theory.
And god is not a simple conclusion because then we are just asking who created god.
Actually I always hear the opposite complain when "God" is "used to explain everything". Hence the "simple" solution.
To the argument of who created God, I believe is not a question which makes sense as you are asserting in the question a messurment of time into someone which exists outside of time. (E.g. if time was a 2D plane instead of viewed as a 1D line of past/present/future how you say how old you were?), hence by asking an entity which exists outside of time how old he is, how would you answer that?
Lets look at the theory of cause and effect. A "effect" has a cause. Hence the universe existence would have a "cause" (unless you are prescribing the steady state model). The "cause" can not have been made from any physical / energy source because you are then relying on something's own existence to explain how it came to being. Which violates the no creation of energy law of the universe.
Oh please dont try to say quantum fluctuation of virtual particles as that is one big cop out of an answer. (i.e. what created the energy again)
The "theory" which requires less assumptions is creation of a universe by an (super) intelligent being. The theory of the big bang requires many adhoc assumptions to explain each stage the BB when though. Occam's razor would favor a creationist.
(Read the book Dismantling the big bang for more details in that.)
I have studied some biochemistry in university, I know how complex a modern cell is. The first cell could easily have been a simple replicator inside a lipid membrane.
This is where the argument of where you would say "it doesn't exist anymore" would come in.
Please define what "simple" is when it comes to replicators.
Are you referring to crystal like structures or a fully blown dna reading machine?
Having a crystal like structure doesn't produce the machinery to replicate, it can self assemble into a organised shape predestined by it's chemical properties. Although these structures show highly ordered arrangements, but all they ever be are structures align to there chemical nature.
The simplest self replicating thing I've read about is an artificial self replicating hex like structure that was on slashdot about 2 months ago, which could replicate by heating the solution then cooling it down again. This needs many human interferences for it to be self replicating. E.g. the right sollution, and heating cycle. Again this artificial thing couldn't become more complex due it's shape being linked to it's chemical properties.
The replication from organic things
I will try and debate with you, but from previous experience I'm pretty sure what will happen. It will get to a point where I will say, that doesn't exist any more, or that evolved away and we don't see it, and you'll say aha!, so you don't know it all, it was clearly god. :p
Yeah, most likly something like that will happen. I can assume neither one of us will change our minds/opinions on the subject matter. But I will continue because like a parable "Iron sharpens iron", with out someone (with knowledge) attacking what I "believe" I would find it more difficult to expand my mind for more understanding and knowledge. I find that when someone attacks what I believe I have motivation to defend it and therefor learn new things. (e.g. I will have to read up on Lipids)
But this disregards the fact that we don't need to know all the answers, we just need to use the simplest conclusion by extrapolating from known data.
Well thats not necessarily a correct methodology, but I am just being a bit pedantic.
And god is not a simple conclusion because then we are just asking who created god.
Actually I always hear the opposite complain when "God" is "used to explain everything". Hence the "simple" solution.
To the argument of who created God:
As a basic formula of cause and effect, (cause leads to effect), for the universe to exist it must have a cause. Trying to invoke a physical force, e.g. energy or any type of matter will not do for what then created that?. For the universe to be created you will need something/(someone) to be the cause for the effect. An example of God's not being part of space/time is his ability to tell the future. Only when you are outside the universe (s/t) can you do that. So when it comes to the big bang, the theory leads to strings then to membranes, all of which has no physical evidence and still leads to the question what created the strings/ membranes and all the energy required therein as energy can not be created or destroyed.
Finally as to who created God, I dont know if that question makes sence because you are then trying to apply our time view onto someone who doesn't exist in that time view/space. Hence the question being N/A.
Oh please dont try to say quantum fluctuation of virtual particles as that is one big cop out of an answer. (i.e. what created the energy again)
I have studied some biochemistry in university, I know how complex a modern cell is. The first cell could easily have been a simple replicator inside a lipid membrane.
Please define what "simple" is when it comes to replicators. Having a crystal like sturture doesn't produce the machinery to replicate, it can self assemble into a organised shape predestined by it's chemical properties. The simplest self replicating thing I personally know of is an artificial self replicating hex like structure that was on slashdot about 2 months ago, which could replicate by heating the solution then cooling it down again.
The replication from organic things comes from it's dna chain which it's assembly it not related to it chemical properties. For example the sentence: "To be or not to be", does not make any sense, all it is, is a collection of symbols stringed together, the shape of the letters give not relevance to the next symbol in the sentence nor to its ultimate meaning. It's only when a decoder it used (English) can we understand the sentence and get information out of it. Hence any "simple" replication structure you are thinking of would be a crystal structure which can have order by not information, all they will ever be is crystal like in structure.
Lipids can naturally and spontaneously form cell like enclosures all on their own.
Ok, I believe you on this, (I am ignorant on whats Lipids are) this would be easily testable. (put Lipids together and see them cl
I know the feeling. :-(
The first cell wasn't produced by randomness, that's clearly impossible, it's an incremental process. You've fallen into the usual creationists argument that cells sprang forth from nothing.
Excuse me but you just contradicted yourself. We all know abio can't happen, and waving a magic wand saying it was chunks of proteins instead of single amino acids where used to make the "first" cell is highly dishonest. Your argument there is saying cars dont form by themselves atom by atom, it's all the interconnected parts that form together to make a car. You are still left with the position of explaining in your version of abio of how all the components form into anything that could self replicate yet alone how all thoses required components could form at all. You require a lot of faith to make that claim which lacks evidence for. You've fallen for a common athest argument that the first cell was a simple thing, yet not knowing how incredibly complex the simplest of cells are. There is no incremental process for something which are self replicate.
The other mistake in your argument is that something can "evol" into gaining features which are not there. This goes against chemical & biological science.
Chemical Sciences: any solution will break down into it's low state where everything is mixed. If you looked at the mulla gray experiments, you will see that although proteins/acids are created, they are created in a toxic environment, there is no chance for any of the proteins to form chains. There are no RNA machines to process the DNA either. This has been 50/60 years now and the more complex you get the more it shows that life only comes from life, not from chemicals.
DNA is highly reactive and easily breaks down.
Biological Sciences: Every day there are over 1 million mutations happening in each of your cell's DNA strains. The first cell must have all the machinery already set up to handle all the damage from the beginning. (even more so since you can't invoke a cell wall yet) Mutations do not cause an increase in complexity, Every occurrence observed has shown either no visible effect or harmful effect*
* over 10000 mutations shown in the human body which causes cancers/liver failures/brain tumours etc... with a handful of mutations which destroy functionally which can have an advantage. (e.g. whites can drink milk)
If you study a cell there's clearly lots of different bits joined together that could easily have been separate pieces.
Can I sell you a car, it's all dissemble but it got all the components of a car. You will need to explain how those components all assemble themselves in the correct order encoded in the dna strain with all the machinery able to decode it alongside all the protection machines and power supply machines for it to be functional. Remember, if you connect a piston to a crankshalf, you still do not have a car! (or anything that moves).
And please don't refer to anything to do with creationism as science. If you take the bible literally, you are an enemy of science.
And please dont refer to anything to do with evolution as science, it's demonstrated to not work. all biological phenomenons do not require that unscientific theory.
I take observation evidence in the bible literary, instead of you who would rather believe in the miracles of evolution despite all observation science telling otherwise.
Religion is just a method created by the brain to deal with the fact that humans are aware of their own mortality. Weak people who can't deal with this fact hide behind religion.
Shooting the messenger? let me take another view of this:
Evolution is just a method created by the brain to deal with the fact that humans are aware of their own mortality and do not want to be accountable for their actions from their maker.
Leaders realised this fact and used
Hello Anonymous,
I am a creationist, (I am not liked if you look at my karma). I have a few comments about your post.
First: Randomness can not generate the first cell (abiogenesis) . Even the hypothetical of 256 genes using the probability of left vs right handed proteins makes the changes of that "prefect" cell (which is actually too weak to survive) have the odds of 10^3070. The chemical assembly of the cell is not linked to the chemical properties of the cell. Evolution has the issues with science. (I've talked about mutations & natural selection is my history)
Third: Genesis 1 & 2 are to be read literally. Genesis reads with specific ordering. It is not a poem, It is not a allegory, it's not a parable. It is written as a observation recording of what happen. It is therefore to be read as history. But lets use scripture to check this out. Genesis 1 uses ordeal numbers with it days. Day One Day Twom Day three. The only other part in the bible that matches it's structure is in numbers ch 17, where it talked about day one, day two day three where it was talking about some jewish thing I can't remember. That is read has fact/history and not as a poem, so dont try to pick and choose what you want to believe.
How do the people in the bible thought about Gen 1?
In exodus, in the 10 commandments, Rememberer the 7th day to keep it holy.. (It's referencing to a literal 24 hour day, not periods like muslems, not billion of years like evolutionists.
Jesus say if you don't believe Moses then you wouldn't believe me (Moses written the tora (first 5 books of bible) to my memory)
To others reading this post:
If any one has issues thinking there is a "religion" vs "science" instead of
"creation world view" vs "evolution world view"
"creation science" vs "evolution science"
may I suggest http://creation.com/ and read up on what is fact and what is story telling, instead of just blindly trying to bash reglious groups (even the wrong muslims) because you think there are wrong. When you hear only one side of the story you will think that is correct until the other side gets a chance to speak.
Cheers ;-) )
(and err, God bless
I define the definitions so that we all speak the same language. If you asked me did I believe that creatures changed i would say yes. But you will take that as yes to evolution.
A clear definition is required because at the moment evolution is thought of as "things changing". But this concept of what evolution is, is so broad that it will make me an evolutionist.
Heres the problem, Evolution takes the best of natural selection and mutations into itself and claim it has it's own. I.e. you see fenches in the geloipus islands with there difference beaks so evolution is true. So most people dont see is that evolution takes a truth (NS & Mutations) and then mixes in a lie of pure fantasy. It's a bait and switch.
Hence be defining what evolution is, which is separate from it's underlying theories, i hope to show to you the fallacy of it while maintining true "operational" science. Basically sperating the myths and lies from the truth.
So hence for the purpose to facilitate this conversation, I define evolution as which you can understand which is what it is being allocated as doing without it steal away from real theories.
So I dont mean to be rude but speak my language please. because your beliefs are in a theory that claims alot and uses deceit to pull of the magic of it and until we understand each others point view clearly, we would just get no where.
I am a creationist. We know mutations happen. To you will need to prove that mutations are good. I purpose you walk into the fukushima plant and just stand there for 30 mins. Once you turn green when ever you get anger, you will have proved me wrong.
But if you get sick from liver failures, and pass on cancers to your childern's childrens children, then I will be proven right.
The problem with mutations is that they cause damage to a working function. There are 10,000 known mutations that causes cancers, tumours, and blood diseces, and only a hand full of mutations that are beneficial (all of them breaking a working function which doesn't show evolution).
If you want to believe in evolution, please know the facts before blindly believing in the impossible and then making fun of people of different views than yours.
Natural Selection (and maybe mutations) are the main methods for new species.
(Definitions: Species: are creatures who dont bread with each other
Kind: Not sure how to describe it, basically how you classify something to a 8yr old, (dog, fish, horse) )
These fish are the same "Kind", Fish, theses are still the same "Species".
A "Kind" contains lots of variations within itself (DNA) where the creature can be fine tune to the enviroment. That process called natural selection.
An example of this is Dogs and Wolfs. Chiwawas and great danes come of wolfs. The Wolf had the information for all these species within the K9 "Kind" The Chiawawas and great danes are different species but they are all dogs, but the Chiawawa & GD are more specified than the wolf meaning you can't get the wolf from the chiawawa, but you can get the chiawawa from the wolf. So a more specified (selected) creature doesn't show evolution, as it shows a decrease in the variation of the host. It is not evolved because it has less variations (hence harder to adapt to new enviroments) than the parent kind.
In the fish, the Mutated fish grow slower and is only found near the hudson where it's mutation gives a better advantage than the flaws it brings. Each is better suited to its enviroment. But having something broken is not a sign a evolution. evolution (Goo to you via zoo) needs increases in structures and features, not things breaking.
Lets do a car analogy, I took a brick, though it in your car window, it is now smashed up so you can't see, you will now have to drive slower and so you now dont skid as much. this only works in snowy (PCB) areas but it shows your car has evolved by having a smashed up window. I bet you wont thank anyone that tests that out. But this is the BS that gets passed as evolution all the time. Something that breaks doesn't show evolution. Something that changes doesn't show evolution (according to how lazy you define evolution). Only new features could explain Evolution which this case doesn't show. PCB resistances via broken genes I argue isn't a "new feature", but a smashed window.
Things we agree on?
Each fish are better suited to it's environment.
things we dont agree on:
These mutations dont show evolution (things breaking dont show "Goo to you via zoo" evolution)
The hudson fish are "weaker" because they can't survive in the wild (as good as others)
Evolution causes "specification/speciation". The theory of Evol is not needed for speciation. NS & Mutations do that already.
So my remark stands that claiming that a gene broken is "evolution" (goo to you type) is bad science.
(Please dont try to argue that simply changing is evolution, as no creationist argues that creatures change. Natural Selection & Mutations are real science that can be observed in the lab and repeated, for ~400 years. The "goo to you via zoo" version of "evolution" is not observable and makes no predictions. See the great dawkins being stump when ask what causes evolution (play the video) http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again )
What bad science. This is just another article pushing evolution as the theory of how everything works.
I read about these fish about a 2 weeks ago, Here a link to a online version if you want to read it. http://creation.com/rapid-tomcod-evolution
Basically the fish are an example of mutations and natural selection. The damage genes in the fish make it better suited to it's environment but it doesn't show it getting more complex, actually the opposite, a weaker fish. But you dont get published without towing the line of Evolution.
Notice how the mutations are limited to the Hudson area. The fish are less fit than the wild fish in the oceans.
(I define evolution as change going up hill, or as to quote a catch parse, "goo to you via zoo". I do not defined it as "things changes", as Natural Selection & Mutations cover that area already.)
Of course I will be modded down as always, I just thought that a different view should be presented, take it or leave it, its up to you.
Your views: I am an animal and to all purposes a "monkey". There is nothing wrong in killing a monkey or pig, enslaving horses and sheep, or fellow humans.
And how does evolution reach that conclusion?
It teaches it by saying survival of the fittest. if an animal can kill another animal, and we are only animal then logically there is nothing wrong in it.
My view is that when evolution has been misused as a rationalization for murder and genocide, the abuser has in additional made the claim that they are somehow better than the other class of humans.
It's very easy to "misuse" evolution as it's logical conclusion is just that view point. Charles thought niggers were more like apes, and whites where more evolved than blacks. This is why evol isn't an inert idea. It is the building block of your entire world view. Who are you, what you are worth, what you can do to others. It wasn't until operational science of DNA proved otherwise.
There is an exceptionalism that allows them to rationalize the murder of those they wish while simultaneously preserving their own status among the living.
Yeah, it's an easy jump depending on your world view.
Even the Israelis have in the Bible misused their perceived status as special people of God to kill rival peoples.
I assumed you are talking about when the Jews crossed over to Israel. I am a bit weak in the theory of this area but to what I can recall about this history is that land was reserved for the Jews. Satan knowing that the "Christ" was promised to come from the line of Abraham (Jews) setup several populations in the area. Note that when the Moses told 12 jew to cross the river and check out the land, 2 reported it was ripe for the taking, 10 reported that there were giants in the land. The nephilim where around before the flood, they were gaints (about 1.5 story house) and they where the cross breed between a angle (fallen angel) and a woman. The flood killed all the Nephilims. The giants in the land was just another attempt to thawt God's plan. Hence God said to kill theses people as they were the mortal enemies of the jews.
Now when the Jews where taking city and after city the neighbours took noticed of theses Jews taking all the citys to the south so this one city send 3 officials to go out and talk to the Jews and make a deal with them. The jews came across these 3 people saying they where from a far away city far up north, they where walking for many days to get here and so they offered a peice deal with the jews. The leader thought that this city was too far away (weeks away) so they made a piece tearty with them. The Jews then found the city was just over the hill!. lol, they were tricked but God would keep there promised so that city was speared.
Many generations later, a king of israel when and kill some of the men of that city. That caused a 7yr drought on the land, the jews asked, etf why is there a drought, God said your king killed some of these people. The end result of the king's own sons being put to death and left rotting on the hill side.
Abio can't explain anything. the more it tries the more you relieased Life only comes from life. The more real you get, the impossible it becomes. hence an evolutionist needs faith that this happen because they know it's impossible. Go ahead, look at the chemistry experaments, They can now produce, in only 12 steps each being carefully filtered, 2 types of amino acids for RNA. (what a joke.)
I find it interesting that you claim that God cannot create life via the mechanism of abiogenesis. Perhaps you ought to tell him more of what he can or cannot do.
You dont at all find it odd that you try to use a theory that doesn't use God at all? And the only reason to include God is because it's chemically and phyiscally / statisticall
It's not made out of whole cloth, but based on what we actually see in nature. Further, the theory of evolution doesn't preclude a creator who intentionally uses evolution as their means of biological creation. A "creator line of thinking" is neither required nor rejected.
It is fundamentally opposed to any creator. There is no need for God in evolution.
On matters of physical theory and evidence, you have the possibility of being right. On this matter of logic, you do not. Theories do not have a need for anything, they are merely inert ideas.
On this matter we will just have to agree to disagree. This theory is not an inert idea, it is the basis of the building blocks of your entire world view. this one point will effect how you measure yourself and other people around you.
For example,
Your views: I am an animal and to all purposes a "monkey". There is nothing wrong in killing a monkey or pig, enslaving horses and sheep, or fellow humans. Germans fell for the view the jews where not true humans but less evolved sub humans (just like black people). There is no right or wrong, as they are only chemicals in your brain, there is no logic you can use to say stealing is wrong as you would then be trying to force your morals onto me. hence might is right. You entire existence is a mistake of nature on it's way to something better. (somehow, you still havn't told how yet.)
My views: I am a creature created in the image of God. I have a soul and I am above the animals in the world. I have a purpose (basically to entertain God), and I have a intrinsic value attached to me because I am human. All humans are made in the image of God so everyone has a significants attached to them. I am also flawed and done wrong, but I was also brought and saved from my wrongness with a large price. Hence I know I am deeply valued. I view the world as decaying away, as the evidence with NS & Mutations shows as observed.
Second, this is the sort of nonsense that eventually destroyed Islamic culture as a reasoning culture. They got a 13th century religious nut that decided no theory was valid, if it didn't elevate God to the level of prime mover. For example, Ghazali claimed that all causal events were the result of direct intervention by God. These events only seemed have a pattern because God's will is rational and consistent.
Islam is evil. Please dont try to drag this conversation into that direction unless you read up the history is islam (see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ if you really want to know more about it)
But even if the assertion above is completely true, it still doesn't mean that theories explaining how God's will operates to us have to require God or even are capable of requiring God. Ghazali excluded any attempt at physical theory which didn't evoke God, but he never had a good reason for doing so.
But let's rephrase evolution so that it meets your sensibilities.
Ok, lets try
God created the universe and its laws.
Agreed
He also created life on a planet called Earth through some mechanism which is beyond the scope of evolution
He spoke them into existence, Since the universe is a digital simulation, (computer program/ a thought of God maybe?) That would be possible then.
(but not beyond the scope of a theory called "abiogenesis") to explain.
Abio can't explain anything. the more it tries the more you relieased Life only comes from life. The more real you get, the impossible it becomes. hence an evolutionist needs faith that this happen because they know it's impossible. Go ahead, look at the chemistry experaments, They can now pr
Arghh!!!, all the parts of the engine are involved in the motion of the machine!!! ;-) like a mechanical machine!.
We were talking about a "process/theory" in the above. Not something real and works
Don't know why you're frustrated. A machine implements a process and one can reverse engineer the process handily given a working machine. So the distinction is not important.
And that's the thing about evolution. We've come to the stage where not only do we have a model with copious evidence, but we've built working programs that implement the basic algorithm of evolution to do useful stuff.
I was frustrated because you just used an analogy of a engine, which has working parts working together to achieve an outcome with something which all parts work against to achieve the outcome.
Building a simulation in a computer which by passes all the flaws in the theory doesn't prove the theory.
With all your "evidence", please give 1, just 1 example of information gain where it produces a working thing. even if its only a 1 stage thing and not a interconnected multistage component like how hemoglobin ( red blood) is a structure with over 1000 protiens in it. which does nothing... until it's calved up by another protiens which leaves ~900protiens in it, then another calves it to 800, then another calves it to ~512 i think. each stage is usless until the end produce is produced. Can you provide me with anything near like what I showed above, we know you can't.
Once again evolution isn't just inherited traits, natural selection, and mutation. It's the combination of these three aspects into something greater than the components.
I guess the expression, pictures or it didn't happen wouldn't change your mind either. Again you have showing faith in a theory without the evidence. I've shown out NS works against evol, and mutations, the only changing agent in town also works vastly against evol, NS is trying hard to not let the creature die. Thats why you get blind fish in dark caves, the moment NS can't filter it, things to to sh*t.
Again you either need to provide evidence of information increase, i.e. how the information got there. or admit you believing by faith that how it works.
As to your comments about "irreducible complexity", I already noted a way to convert an irreducibly complex internal combustion engine into an irreducibly complex jet engine. Rather than incrementally take things away from the engine, I incrementally added things to turn it into a reducibly complex thing. And with enough stuff added, I got to a point where I could reduce the thing either to an internal combustion engine or a jet engine.
Again with that story you will have to tell me why each and every piece of the jet was added to a internal combustion engine while still giving an advantage to the internal combustion engine. I.e. Why hasn't Ford and Toyota, added half a jet engine to each of their lastest cars? It's because it will not proved any advantage until the entire thing is there, and conversely slow and weigh down the car for no reason making and unneeded cost to the production of the car.
So can you answer my question, How do you get evolution from increase information? Or atleast admit you take it by faith that evol is real, which effectively makes it a supernatural explanation and not "real (operational) science".
Oh yes, I can do this. First, let's consider the situation with mutation and no natural selection. The latter implies that every organism, no matter how messed up, managed to pass its traits on to the next generation. End result is going to be perfect noise asymptotically (that is, it approaches perfect noise as the number of generations gets large).
Selection turns that noise into structure and we can even quantify how much information gets created in the pro
I disagree, the algorithm doesn't explain the gain. and all sub components of that algorithm works against it and explain all change already observed. How does the whole of the parts be not only greater than the sum of the parts but also change polarity?
Lot of systems work that way. For example, your internal combustion engine and jet engines of a previous example. Start taking parts away and pretty soon you have a bunch of metal, not a working engine.
Arghh!!!, all the parts of the engine are involved in the motion of the machine!!! ;-) like a mechanical machine!.
We were talking about a "process/theory" in the above. Not something real and works
If you are trying to make a scenario with an engine, any engine, in this scenario to what I said above about how all of the components work against the outcome wanted. It would be like a car with NO engine, with only a brakes to speed it up and parachute to control its direction. both parts do not make this theoretical car move forwards, both will hinder it. And thats what evol is, something which all parts move in the opposite direction of the direction wanted. So the evolution train is coming, but only in the wrong direction.
Now, in a physical machine, the whole of the parts combine into a greater than sum net positive. Now any engine would be a perfect example of something called irreducible complexity. IC means you can't take away anything or the thing doesn't work. I got a lovly movie of the flagellum at home, it talks about 40 different proteins, the nearest evol have to this is a needle jet noise structure which has only 12 of the proteins in it. Again they suffer from IC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnSxRYx82Gk
Thus in the theory of Evol, you can't have a halve functioning foo() organ until it actually foos(). Any attempt to evol a foo() organ will result in a non function organ. Natural Selection will remove the foo as best as it can. Do you have a foo organ? Do any human have a foo organ? So irreducible complexity also works forwards to block any improvements required anything more than a 3 point mutation. (it took 35,000 generations for a bacteria over 30yrs to mutate a 3 point spot mutated broken switch for processing food in another environment (again thats devolving, just letting you know the scale of the problem here for evols.))
Again leading to the problem of where the information comes from. How can you jump the hurdle when you are push back from it?
You can test this out for yourself, make a simple ant food game where ants eat the food. You can cheat by evolving the ants to a level where they can see the food infront of them. once you got that up and running, take the perfect ant and make it the only ant in the world. (x100). change the algorthem so that only the ants that collect enough food goes on to have children. make each ant breed with another and add a mutation in, lets say 90% remain on, and add 10% (less fit) new only being a mixture of the existing ants. you will then see that the mutations build up in the entire populations until the point where it crashes in on itself. (you can not make perfect copies of the original perfect ant). Here you will see NS block the less fit. and mutations building up in the population.
We can actually demonstrate this phenomena by making the mutation rate rather high. A low mutation rate combined with selection doesn't exhibit the above behavior.
Yeah, that would do it as well.
But I fear you dont see my point about how you must have faith for evolution to work as it's own parts work against it. All of biology can be explained without it. Its only purpose is to reject the creator line of thinking which is not unscientific. If something has specified complexity, can't/very unlikely come about naturally, and des