Not really. But we're still working on it. Science doesn't claim to know everything. Quantum mechanics does offer some insights on how things can come from nothing, and string theory has some promising lines of inquiry into the very very very very very early universe.
o wait if you don't know where it came from...then you have no begining...
Hmm? I thought you were going to give rebuttals to all my responses to your questions. But all you can come up with are incoherent sentence fragments?
I was taught Evolution in school AND Creationism. I made up my own mind for what worked for me. If that makes me ignorant, intollerant, etc. then I am going to have to live with that.
No, it just makes you wrong.:)
Evolution occurs. We know it occurs. We've watched it occur in the lab and in nature. No serious scientist doubts that it occurs. All they are arguing about now are the precise details.
Prove that ID doesn't have anything to do with science
The previous poster already did. ID is not falsifiable. What test can you perform to show whether something was designed or not? What predictions does ID make?
And what is this amazing evidence that he never wrote up in a peer-reviewed journal, totally upset 150 years of research with, and won the Nobel Prize by discovering?
I think what Christian fundamentalists find so threatening about evolution is that, if it is true, then God can be rejected as unnecessary from the general worldview.
Oh rubbish. First off, evolution (defined as the change in heritable characteristics of a species over time) is true. We've watched it happen. Secondly, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. How do you know God isn't using evolution to build His creation?
But if he wants to TEACH MY CHILDREN THAT I AM WRONG in my belief in God
Please cite any instance of any scientist doing such a thing.
My reaction is pretty much the same as that same atheistic professor's response is when the school board votes to require Bible study in his son's classroom.
Except the Constitution supports the professor in that case.
We need kids who can learn to compromise with opposing viewpoints, otherwise we're toast.
You can't compromise on scientific truth though. There's no compromise between Newton and Einstein. Newton's theory, when pushed to the extreme, turned out to be wrong. You don't hear physicists arguing for a compromise between viewpoints.
One of Jesus' commandments is to go into all the world and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. if that is what we believe in then why shouldnt we have the right to teach ID with the same weight as evolution?
Sigh. A) Because not everyone accepts the Bible as true and B) because ID is not a scientific theory.
You can't seem to get this through your head. It doesn't matter whether it came from. It could have been the Big Bang or the literal Genesis account or it could have come out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. It's not relevant to evolution. At all.
A bacterium cell that's become resistant isn't a mutation
Um, yes it is. You can start with a single non-resistant bacterium and grow a culture. Some of the resulting culture will be resistant and some won't.
It takes more faith to believe that we came from some dust and gravity than to believe that there is a God that made us.
No, it doesn't. It just brings up more unanswered questions, like, where did God come from then?
How about this: In my kitchen, I have a container full of sodium and chlorine atoms. They are joined into pairs and are all arranged in a crystalline pattern such that they are grouped into tiny cubes. Did some entity produce all that order or is it simply the natural result of some simple rules?
Or are you just an atheist who doesn't believe in God so that you can do whatever you want without consequences?
Look out, he comes another rampaging mob of atheists, raping and pillaging across the countryside!
How about the way that your eyes and ears are made? They can't evolve. They need everything the way that it is right now for them to be able to work.
Prove it, and you will win the Nobel Prize. If you're going to use our eyes as an example of perfection, please answer this: All of our eyes have a blind spot because they are wired backwards. Other organisms aren't hampered by this mistake. Why did an omnipotent creator do such a botched job?
if you don't believe in the big bang theory then where did the matter and gravitiy come from? aliens???
I repeat: Evolution doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with the Big Bang. Why would you think it does? Oh, and I do think the Big Bang theory is broadly true, because it has evidence behind it.
then where did it come from?
We don't know. Yet.
I could fill out an answer to all your questions but these ones should finished off the thread.
Ah, so you don't *have* any answers then. That's OK, I understand.
The first is a "possibly, even probably", based on the evidence, the second is conjecture.
No, the second is a fact too. It has nothing to do with layers. It has to do with the age of the rock (igneous) on either side of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. There is also a pattern of magnetic field reversals preserved in the rock.
And niether theory has good answers for some very large-scale effects that do exist: like the thousands of square miles of sedimentary layers that were somehow "flipped over" *intact* to produce a mirror image with the seabed in the middle
Um, what? It's not difficult. Folding due to slow defomration of the crust.
things like giant fossils that make no sense unless ancient earth was *very* different from the wildest imaginings of evolutionists.
First, which creationist website did you crib this from?
(Actually, there is one Eyewitness, and He wrote a Book about it, but this Testimony has been ruled inadmissible by opponents of His view.)
That's cos we don't *know* that He wrote it.
We can look at living organisms and see that they are incredibly complex,
Provide a definition of "complex". Is a snowflake complex? Are all snowflakes designed, or does their shape arise from a few simple rules of chemistry and physics?
Never has a truly beneficial mutation been observed
Actually, we see them every year. Almost wvery day even. Otherwise, we wouldn't need new flu vaccines, and we wouldn't have insects becoming resistant to pesticides.
The fossil record is overflowing with "gaps"--no organisms bridging the span between basic categories have ever been found.
First, fossilization is a very rare event. Second, the fossil record is the weakest of the evidences for evolution. If we didn't have a single fossil, evolution would still be well-supported. And asking for transitionals is a never-ending process. If we eventually find fossil B between A and C, then creationists just ask for one between A and B; and between B and C. You won't be satisfied until a fossil of every single thing that ever lived is found.
Evolutionists spend great effort to propose mathematical models for the Big Bang.
Evolution hasn't got a goddamned thing to do with the Big Bang. You're starting to look like an idiot.
List The first 6 have nothing to do with evolution.
Number 7: We don't know yet.
Number 8: What the hell? Things "want" to produce more things so that the species as a whole has a greater chance of survival.
Number 9: Natural selection.
Number 10: Sure. But why would an omnipotent Creator do that? And why did he do such a botched job with some things... human eyes for example?
Number 11: Increasing complexity of the genetic code is not necessary for evolution to take place, so your entire question is moot.
Numbers 12 through 15: You seen to be assuming that evolution only does one thing at a time. "OK guys, we've got the gills, now lets work on the fins." It doesn't happen like that.
Number 16: Examples, please.
Number 17, 19: How do you know they never could have evolved?
Number 18: Except we know for a fact that it's taken millions of years for the continents to separate.
Number 20: Read a science book.
Number 21, 22: What?
Number 23: No, fool.
Flood list
Number 1: Except that A) all those legends don't agree on the date and B) there is no geologic evidence of a worldwide flood.
Number 2: Doesn't matter if it was only designed to float, it wouldn't. It is physically impossible to build a wooden boat that size that will not leak like a sieve and capsize in the first decent-sized wave. Sorry, but them's the facts.
Number 3: Wrong. Please post the list of all the creatures that were in the Ark and discuss how much room they would need. (Hint: You can't stack them up like crates and expect them to survive.) Bear in mind that you need food for one year, you need ventilation (the Ark only had one window, according to Scripture), and you need to be able to clean out the manure. Also, you need to explain how Noah and his family had enough time to feed them all.
Number 4-6: What? The Ark *may* have had an outboard motor or hoverpods as well. I can speculate wildly too.
Number 7: Prove it. Also, please show an example of one of your 11-foot skeletons. I'll settle for a 10-footer is that's too hard.
Number 8: So you argue against evolution, and then postulate a rate of evolution after the Flood that would make any evolutionary scientist laugh. gg
Number 9: If God was going to do all that, why bother with an old man in a boat in the first place?
However, N times zero is also zero. The total energy in the universe could be 0 (gravity being "negative" and everything else being "positive"). Thus, even though the universe exists, in a certain sense you could say that it amounts to nothing.:)
Intelligent Design is just as "scientific" as evolution.
Wrongo. Please describe how one can objectively determine whether something has been designed or not. Please explain the mechanism that the designer used. Please explain how the concept of ID could be disproved.
Evolution has 150 years of painstaking research behind it. ID has some people saying, "Things are too complex. There must have been a designer."
You've got evidence, and you can come up with theories to fit the evidence, but in no way can you prove it without a control planet and another billion years.
You can't *prove* a scientific theory. Any of them. A theory is the best you ever have.
Personally, I don't think that public schools should teach any origin theories. Kids don't need it.
Except that the theory of evolution underlies all of modern biology and genetics.
Who says the relationship is linear? Who says they were originally together anyway?
The geologic evidence does. You can date the rocks from the ocean floor on either side of the ridge. You can also observe the alternating pattern of magnetic field reversals preserved in the rocks. You can find fossils from the same species on South America and Africa.
The Americas *were* once joined with Europe and Africa, and it *has* taken millions of years to reach their current positions.
Yes, if continental drift, atomic decay, etc, were constant throughout the ages, we may be able to safely conclude that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Problem is, we can't prove this.Actually, we can prove that atomic decay has been constant for at least several hundred thousand years. Brightness curves in supernova explosions and all that.
In the case of x = x++, x would get incremented, and then it would get set back to its value before it was incremented.
Not necessarily. It's *undefined*. Meaning, the compiler can do whatever it wants to with it. For instance, I just compiled it with gcc 3.2.2 and starting with x = 3, x=x++ gave 4.
In the real world, you get handed 100,000-line Fortran 77 apps (if you are lucky), and have to make them work. You don't get an abitrary amount of time just so you can rewrite them in whatever the current non-POS language is (which is a moving goalpost anyway). And even if you have the time to rewrite it, sometimes you can't, because the program produces some mathematical results that have only been certified for a specific set of Fortran code.
I deal with heaps of crappy Fortran on an almost daily basis, but rewriting it is simply not an option.
People who want to indent with spaces need their heads examined.
I always use spaces.:)
When I started my job out of college, the project I worked on had an indent style I would characterize as "chaotic" or "nonexistent". Some people had used hard tabs (with various space equivalents), some had used tabs + spaces, some had just used spaces. Everyone did whatever looked OK in whatever editor they happened to be using that day.
So I decided to always use spaces, since that would always look the way I intended it
And since my way of indenting is OBVIOUSLY the only correct way of doing it...
Activist Judges? Please explain to me what an activist judge is.An activist judge is one who supports something you disagree with. On the other hand, if they DON'T support something you DO agree with, it's judicial tyranny. Hope that helps!
Slashdot Mirror
But that doesn't invalidate the science
It doesn't invalidate the science because Kent Hovind doesn't have any science to offer.
well u've had quite the time to work on it...
Not really. But we're still working on it. Science doesn't claim to know everything. Quantum mechanics does offer some insights on how things can come from nothing, and string theory has some promising lines of inquiry into the very very very very very early universe.
o wait if you don't know where it came from...then you have no begining...
Hmm? I thought you were going to give rebuttals to all my responses to your questions. But all you can come up with are incoherent sentence fragments?
I was taught Evolution in school AND Creationism. I made up my own mind for what worked for me. If that makes me ignorant, intollerant, etc. then I am going to have to live with that.
:)
No, it just makes you wrong.
Evolution occurs. We know it occurs. We've watched it occur in the lab and in nature. No serious scientist doubts that it occurs. All they are arguing about now are the precise details.
Drdino is run by Kent Hovind, who is a known crackpot. Please try better next time.
Prove that ID doesn't have anything to do with science
The previous poster already did. ID is not falsifiable. What test can you perform to show whether something was designed or not? What predictions does ID make?
Check out the site of this noted biologist,
Was is his name?
And what is this amazing evidence that he never wrote up in a peer-reviewed journal, totally upset 150 years of research with, and won the Nobel Prize by discovering?
I think what Christian fundamentalists find so threatening about evolution is that, if it is true, then God can be rejected as unnecessary from the general worldview.
Oh rubbish. First off, evolution (defined as the change in heritable characteristics of a species over time) is true. We've watched it happen. Secondly, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. How do you know God isn't using evolution to build His creation?
But if he wants to TEACH MY CHILDREN THAT I AM WRONG in my belief in God
Please cite any instance of any scientist doing such a thing.
My reaction is pretty much the same as that same atheistic professor's response is when the school board votes to require Bible study in his son's classroom.
Except the Constitution supports the professor in that case.
We need kids who can learn to compromise with opposing viewpoints, otherwise we're toast.
You can't compromise on scientific truth though. There's no compromise between Newton and Einstein. Newton's theory, when pushed to the extreme, turned out to be wrong. You don't hear physicists arguing for a compromise between viewpoints.
One of Jesus' commandments is to go into all the world and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. if that is what we believe in then why shouldnt we have the right to teach ID with the same weight as evolution?
Sigh. A) Because not everyone accepts the Bible as true and B) because ID is not a scientific theory.
Jesus predicted in the Bible before he died on the cross
:)
Considering the earliest gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus' death, I don't find this "prediction" too convincing.
1. Where did the matter that evolved come from?
You can't seem to get this through your head. It doesn't matter whether it came from. It could have been the Big Bang or the literal Genesis account or it could have come out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. It's not relevant to evolution. At all.
Please some me some evidence of it. I'd love to see it. Observed evidence?
http://talkorigins.org/
A bacterium cell that's become resistant isn't a mutation
Um, yes it is. You can start with a single non-resistant bacterium and grow a culture. Some of the resulting culture will be resistant and some won't.
It takes more faith to believe that we came from some dust and gravity than to believe that there is a God that made us.
No, it doesn't. It just brings up more unanswered questions, like, where did God come from then?
How about this: In my kitchen, I have a container full of sodium and chlorine atoms. They are joined into pairs and are all arranged in a crystalline pattern such that they are grouped into tiny cubes. Did some entity produce all that order or is it simply the natural result of some simple rules?
Or are you just an atheist who doesn't believe in God so that you can do whatever you want without consequences?
Look out, he comes another rampaging mob of atheists, raping and pillaging across the countryside!
How about the way that your eyes and ears are made? They can't evolve. They need everything the way that it is right now for them to be able to work.
Prove it, and you will win the Nobel Prize. If you're going to use our eyes as an example of perfection, please answer this: All of our eyes have a blind spot because they are wired backwards. Other organisms aren't hampered by this mistake. Why did an omnipotent creator do such a botched job?
if you don't believe in the big bang theory then where did the matter and gravitiy come from? aliens???
I repeat: Evolution doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with the Big Bang. Why would you think it does? Oh, and I do think the Big Bang theory is broadly true, because it has evidence behind it.
then where did it come from?
We don't know. Yet.
I could fill out an answer to all your questions but these ones should finished off the thread.
Ah, so you don't *have* any answers then. That's OK, I understand.
The first is a "possibly, even probably", based on the evidence, the second is conjecture.
No, the second is a fact too. It has nothing to do with layers. It has to do with the age of the rock (igneous) on either side of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. There is also a pattern of magnetic field reversals preserved in the rock.
And niether theory has good answers for some very large-scale effects that do exist: like the thousands of square miles of sedimentary layers that were somehow "flipped over" *intact* to produce a mirror image with the seabed in the middle
Um, what? It's not difficult. Folding due to slow defomration of the crust.
things like giant fossils that make no sense unless ancient earth was *very* different from the wildest imaginings of evolutionists.
Example please.
First, which creationist website did you crib this from?
(Actually, there is one Eyewitness, and He wrote a Book about it, but this Testimony has been ruled inadmissible by opponents of His view.)
That's cos we don't *know* that He wrote it.
We can look at living organisms and see that they are incredibly complex,
Provide a definition of "complex". Is a snowflake complex? Are all snowflakes designed, or does their shape arise from a few simple rules of chemistry and physics?
Never has a truly beneficial mutation been observed
Actually, we see them every year. Almost wvery day even. Otherwise, we wouldn't need new flu vaccines, and we wouldn't have insects becoming resistant to pesticides.
The fossil record is overflowing with "gaps"--no organisms bridging the span between basic categories have ever been found.
First, fossilization is a very rare event. Second, the fossil record is the weakest of the evidences for evolution. If we didn't have a single fossil, evolution would still be well-supported. And asking for transitionals is a never-ending process. If we eventually find fossil B between A and C, then creationists just ask for one between A and B; and between B and C. You won't be satisfied until a fossil of every single thing that ever lived is found.
Evolutionists spend great effort to propose mathematical models for the Big Bang.
Evolution hasn't got a goddamned thing to do with the Big Bang. You're starting to look like an idiot.
List
The first 6 have nothing to do with evolution.
Number 7: We don't know yet.
Number 8: What the hell? Things "want" to produce more things so that the species as a whole has a greater chance of survival.
Number 9: Natural selection.
Number 10: Sure. But why would an omnipotent Creator do that? And why did he do such a botched job with some things... human eyes for example?
Number 11: Increasing complexity of the genetic code is not necessary for evolution to take place, so your entire question is moot.
Numbers 12 through 15: You seen to be assuming that evolution only does one thing at a time. "OK guys, we've got the gills, now lets work on the fins." It doesn't happen like that.
Number 16: Examples, please.
Number 17, 19: How do you know they never could have evolved?
Number 18: Except we know for a fact that it's taken millions of years for the continents to separate.
Number 20: Read a science book.
Number 21, 22: What?
Number 23: No, fool.
Flood list
Number 1: Except that A) all those legends don't agree on the date and B) there is no geologic evidence of a worldwide flood.
Number 2: Doesn't matter if it was only designed to float, it wouldn't. It is physically impossible to build a wooden boat that size that will not leak like a sieve and capsize in the first decent-sized wave. Sorry, but them's the facts.
Number 3: Wrong. Please post the list of all the creatures that were in the Ark and discuss how much room they would need. (Hint: You can't stack them up like crates and expect them to survive.) Bear in mind that you need food for one year, you need ventilation (the Ark only had one window, according to Scripture), and you need to be able to clean out the manure. Also, you need to explain how Noah and his family had enough time to feed them all.
Number 4-6: What? The Ark *may* have had an outboard motor or hoverpods as well. I can speculate wildly too.
Number 7: Prove it. Also, please show an example of one of your 11-foot skeletons. I'll settle for a 10-footer is that's too hard.
Number 8: So you argue against evolution, and then postulate a rate of evolution after the Flood that would make any evolutionary scientist laugh. gg
Number 9: If God was going to do all that, why bother with an old man in a boat in the first place?
Number 10
By the same token, neither is macro-evolution.
Speciation, which is the usual definition of "macroevolution", has been observed.
What is "zero times zero"?
:)
However, N times zero is also zero. The total energy in the universe could be 0 (gravity being "negative" and everything else being "positive"). Thus, even though the universe exists, in a certain sense you could say that it amounts to nothing.
Intelligent Design is just as "scientific" as evolution.
Wrongo. Please describe how one can objectively determine whether something has been designed or not. Please explain the mechanism that the designer used. Please explain how the concept of ID could be disproved.
Evolution has 150 years of painstaking research behind it. ID has some people saying, "Things are too complex. There must have been a designer."
You've got evidence, and you can come up with theories to fit the evidence, but in no way can you prove it without a control planet and another billion years.
You can't *prove* a scientific theory. Any of them. A theory is the best you ever have.
Personally, I don't think that public schools should teach any origin theories. Kids don't need it.
Except that the theory of evolution underlies all of modern biology and genetics.
Who says the relationship is linear? Who says they were originally together anyway?
The geologic evidence does. You can date the rocks from the ocean floor on either side of the ridge. You can also observe the alternating pattern of magnetic field reversals preserved in the rocks. You can find fossils from the same species on South America and Africa.
The Americas *were* once joined with Europe and Africa, and it *has* taken millions of years to reach their current positions.
Yes, if continental drift, atomic decay, etc, were constant throughout the ages, we may be able to safely conclude that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Problem is, we can't prove this.Actually, we can prove that atomic decay has been constant for at least several hundred thousand years. Brightness curves in supernova explosions and all that.
Oh, and x += x++, starting with x = 3, return 7. :)
In the case of x = x++, x would get incremented, and then it would get set back to its value before it was incremented.
Not necessarily. It's *undefined*. Meaning, the compiler can do whatever it wants to with it. For instance, I just compiled it with gcc 3.2.2 and starting with x = 3, x=x++ gave 4.
Who do you work for?
In the real world, you get handed 100,000-line Fortran 77 apps (if you are lucky), and have to make them work. You don't get an abitrary amount of time just so you can rewrite them in whatever the current non-POS language is (which is a moving goalpost anyway). And even if you have the time to rewrite it, sometimes you can't, because the program produces some mathematical results that have only been certified for a specific set of Fortran code.
I deal with heaps of crappy Fortran on an almost daily basis, but rewriting it is simply not an option.
People who want to indent with spaces need their heads examined.
:)
I always use spaces.
When I started my job out of college, the project I worked on had an indent style I would characterize as "chaotic" or "nonexistent". Some people had used hard tabs (with various space equivalents), some had used tabs + spaces, some had just used spaces. Everyone did whatever looked OK in whatever editor they happened to be using that day.
So I decided to always use spaces, since that would always look the way I intended it
And since my way of indenting is OBVIOUSLY the only correct way of doing it...
Good God. If you are a lawyer and still don't understand how the system works... I fear for my country more than ever.
Activist Judges? Please explain to me what an activist judge is.An activist judge is one who supports something you disagree with. On the other hand, if they DON'T support something you DO agree with, it's judicial tyranny. Hope that helps!