.....and law suits (like in France) to make it less DRM-encumbered and more accessible.....
If Apple really wanted to make DRM free music now, they could just sell all music in France without the DRM and tell the record companies: "sorry, but the new law makes the parts in our contract that require DRM null and void, so we just removed the DRM so ITMS is compatible with the other music players". When the music companies see that the absence of DRM makes no difference in the number of iTunes music downloads, perhaps they'll finally be convinced of the foolishness of DRM in the first place and drop it once and for all, everywhere. I suspect though that Apple now LIKES the DRM since it limits competition with the iPod.
....commit to stop sending links in e-mail until they have a better solution for the problem......
Not all banks are irresponsible in this. Neither of my banks has ever sent me any e-amil whatsoever. The have messages waiting for users when they log in to their accounts. Both plainly tell their users NEVER to expect an e-mail from them, especially ones asking for any kind of information or with links to click on.
....bank/eBay/PayPal, etc. needs to talk with them.....
Most of these businesses tell their users that they NEVER ever request any private information in any e-mail. I cannot understand why people regularly ignore this. If everybody payed attention to this simple fact, phishers would not have much success. If my bank wants to contact me, they use a message after I log into my account without being prompted by any outside thing like an e-mail. I have never gotten a message from my bank.. If any do send e-mail, they use my full name, not something generic like Dear **** user or other generic messages which is what the phishers use.
.....Once three months have gone by before the DVD is out and the buzz is gone I generally find my interest in the film has waned as well......
I think that if a film is any good at all, it should be worth waiting for until the DVD comes out. I rent the film, then buy a copy if I think it's worth watching again sometime. Projecting films against a large wall and a pretty good sound system makes for enjoyable "movie nights" for family and friends. Hot buttered popcorn add to the enjoyment. Even those friends who have already seen the film in a cinema enjoy it again with us.
.....I naturally assumed that the iPod would last over a year......
The life of most products is a statistical gamble, especially complex electronics. I had an iPod shuffle that died after only 10 months. Apple sent me a new on in three days, no questions asked, at no cost. I also have a second generation 30G iPod that still works just fine, although the battery holds only about half its normal charge now. So, I win so far and you lost the statistical product life lottery. Maybe you'll be luckier next time.
I just patented a molecule. I has two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. It has been known in the past as "water". Anyone who uses it in any form owes me royalties. I also have a patent pending on unique arrangements of protons, neutrons and electrons in 92 distinct groupings. I expect to get a patent soon and then collect money from everybody for EVERYTHING that uses any of these.
......For every Galileo there are a thousand "voices in the wilderness" being ignored by the scientific community simply because their work has no merit.....
I would agree with you that the word "often" is probably misapplied here. The scientific community only ignores the ones that don't cause too many waves by their ideas. The real troublemakers are the ones that come up with evidence that totally destroys the house of cards that the scientific establishment has built up over, sometimes the course of an entire lifetime.
Anyone who brings evidence against the tottering edifice of evolution is going to be violently opposed, no matter what and how much evidence there is brought. It doesn't matter that evolutionary theory makes assertions for what happened in the past, that we do not see happening today nor can be duplicated by experiment. Nothing like this happens in manmade systems either. No human made system ever becomes more complex or sophisticated on its own, yet that is what evolutionists ascribe to the natural world.
....I acknowledge that the laws of physics are "set up" one way or another and that matter and energy obey them. The question of where those laws come from is, for me, well outside of anything that I've been interested in thinking about.....
First of all let me say that I appreciate that you are discussing these admittedly controversial things with me without name calling, profanity and personal attacks. Many on/. don't seem to be capable of such.
In don't see nearly the chasm or distinction between things and principles of nature and the manmade systems and knowledge. You cannot deny that human laws are made by intelligent beings. Sometimes though the stuff that our politicians come up with may cast doubt on that. (-: !! Why then should natural laws and objects not also be the result of deliberate thought, although an infinitely higher level?
Can you deny that evolution is also subject to these laws "of nature"? If the underlying laws were random, then random evolution would result from them. The fact is that we observe a highly ordered universe obeying consistent unchanging rules. Do the rules by which evolution operated REALLY disinterest you? To me that is akin to seeing a marvelous building and not wanting to learn of its foundations and exploring the wisdom of the architect. This universe is a fascinating place and science to me is one avenue to learn about its designer. By knowing even the tiny amount I do, I stand in awe and respect of the One who formulated its rules by which it was constructed and still operates. However, I also see that there are some serious flaws in the design. The question now is: Were these flaws there in the beginning? Unfortunately science can only study things as they are, not how they may have once been.
From the time I was knee high to a grasshopper, I have always been keenly interested in "what makes it tick?" This was and still is true of both manmade and natural technology. Science is much better at telling how things work than why. Yet the most profound questions we humans ask usually begin with "why". Why is there so much trouble and evil? Why are humans almost constantly at war? There seems to be no end to these "why" questions.
There are still very many gaps in our understanding of even the how questions. Is the brain REALLY the seat of intelligence and consciousness? How does consciousness and thought arise from a pile of cleverly arranged atoms? I'm sure you can think of many others.
Science may, with time answer some of these "how" questions, but the more important "why" questions are outside of its grasp. If you find a watch on a beach, you can study it's design and make certain inferences of the designer. You could examine the watch down to the atomic level, but would never learn WHY the designer made it. Only if the designer decided to communicate with you, could you really know, at least to some degree who he is and what he is like and why he made the watch. If he did communicate, you would have to BELIEVE by faith in such a communication.
I believe, for reasons I could tell you, if you are interested, that the Bible is the authoritative message of the Universe's designer to mankind. He does therein answer many, but not all of the burning "why" question most humans ask in their life. He tells us why there is death and decay. He tells us that there is a purpose and reason for our existence. He tell us of our origin and eventual destiny. The Bible tells us that this One is not disinterested in human affairs and suffering. At one point in time, almost 2000 years ago, he laid aside the privileges and powers of deity and limited Himself to time and space and clothed Himself in a human body and dwelt on earth for 33 years. He entered our world the same way we all do, as a baby.
There are many religions and philosophies and various gurus and teachers have come and gone. None of them claimed to be God and proved it by conquering our greatest, final enemy -- death. If you meet some nuts who claims to b
....My gripe isn't really with the fact that ID supporters are using flawed logic and assuming their conclusion at every turn as long as they do it outside the school system. My problem comes when ID supporters use their whacko ideas of actual scientific principles to shoot down the GOOD work of real scientists.......
You have it wrong if you think I am saying that ALL of evolutionary theory is wrong. I would not dispute that living things are able to make changes in their structures and operation that allows them to survive often severe environmental stresses. The fossil record is fascinating evidence of creatures, many of which no longer are around today. Frankly, I'd hate to be a snack for a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Actually I am an electronics engineer specializing in control systems. In my beginnings these were all analog electric or pneumatic. I was, as it were, dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. From my perspective as an engineer, I have come to understand that living systems are far too complex to have arisen spontaneously, without the input of thought. Every true science involves experiments and current observations. I believe this must be applied to the study of origins also. The problem is that the main tenet of evolution cannot be experimentally verified. The core of evolutionary teaching I greatly disagree with is that simple parts self assemble into complex systems. Ordinary, every day life, as well as scientific experimentation show exactly the opposite. If your car has a worn, broken part, energy and intelligence must be applied to make your car work properly again.
Any subject not experimentally verifiable is beyond the reach of science. Evolution, ID and creationism are all part of the study of origins and all are unfortunately, not subject to true experimental scientific investigations.
I agree with you that ID and creationism should not be taught in a science classroom, but neither should evolution, at least not that aspect of it that asserts that living systems are the result of mindless processes. The study of origins could be taught on an equal footing in a philosophy or religion course.
Do you deny that electrons, atoms, stars, planets and living things ALL have some level of coherent organization, ie. structure? Structure or coherent organization cannot be achieved without the information that determines that structure. It is that very organization and reliability all throughout the universe, that even makes science possible. All of nature operates by certain universal laws and principles. Again, laws and principles of operation are at their core consistent information that tells use how things work. By understanding, again the application of THOUGHT, we can use the information conveyed by these laws to make predictions and then test these by experiments and careful observations of what is happening NOW. We are creatures essentially bound to the present. Whatever happened in the past cannot be changed, although hopefully we may learn something. The future is unknown. None of us know when we will draw our last breath.
(....We've observed and recorded genetic mutations adding information by any reasonable definition of the word...)
Unfortunately mutations never ADD information but lose or garble it every time. Information is stored in physical systems and because these are subject to decay, (entropy) the information stored therein is never increased, but always lost or corrupted in some way. As a CE you surely know of the elaborate measures taken to ensure that physical entropy does not change the data in any way. The DNA coding system also uses error correcting schemes and redundancy to minimize the loss of and corruption of vital data.
(.....I don't claim that the experts are all wrong....)
If you have studied the history of science at all, you should know, that it often was the lone "voice in the wilderness" that was right, against the prevailing wisdom of the large majority of "experts". Many theories have only fall
.....Go back to the salt water experiment and explain how it fails. We start with a pot of salt water. We apply heat (and heat alone!). The water boils off and we get high entropy steam and low entropy crystals....
Anything that has a specific structure, such as molecules and atoms also contains information inherent in the structure. Sodium chloride molecules are included in this. When they form crystals they arrange themselves according to the structure information inherent in their nature. The level or amount of information in atoms and molecules is sufficient to allow them to form regular, repeating structures under the right conditions. Living structures contain orders of magnitude more information. We see this in manmade things also. An automobile contains much more information than a wheelbarrow.
To reduce entropy requires not only energy, but also information that directs how and where to apply this energy. In my pump example the pump applies energy in a specific way. Increasing entropy also decreases the information or order and vice-versa. Any kind of order is the direct result of adding information to the system. In living systems this information is resident in a storage device called the DNA molecule. Unlike computers, which work on a binary system, DNA operates with a four level code. It is these codes, in combination with energy, that direct the assembly and function of all living things.
A computer is a very good analogy. It consists of hardware, which in itself contains a large amount of information in its very structure, put there by the engineers who designed its chips and circuits. However, that in itself only gives you a very expensive doorstop. In order for a compute to function, it also has to have software, additional information that really determines how it operates. The new Intel based Macs normally run the OSX OS, but with a little judicious hacking can also be made to run Windows. It is the software that determines the "personality" of a computer. In addition to software, every computer requires a source of energy, electrical power.
Living system, especially man, mirror this. You have a physical body which in itself contains and is determined by the codes stored in your DNA. After your body was formed a large amount of information was and is still being loaded, by a process we call education, into a special part of you called the mind. All of this is driven by an energy source called food.
A major problem with evolution is that it really has no good explanation of where information originates. Information or knowledge, software, these are immaterial products of MIND. Software as such has certain properties that exempt it from some laws of physics. It has no mass and therefore is may be transmitted at the speed of light. In itself it is not subject to entropy or decay. Its carriers of course are. That's why computer engineers take great pains to ensure data integrity in spite of hardware failures.
ID and creationism posit that there is a mind wherein all information originates. The nature of this mind however cannot be explored by any science we presently know about. That is where faith comes in. You can have faith in evolution which specifically excludes reference to any mind. However, I have chosen to include the idea of God, the great mind and source of information. He tells us in the Bible, which I believe is His communication to us, in 1Corinthians 13:11-13, the great chapter on the nature of love:
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways. Now we see only a blurred reflection in a mirror, but then we will see face to face. Now what I know is incomplete, but then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. Right now three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.
It is my hope that you may decide by faith to seek this God of love and get to know Him, as I have. You WILL find Him if you seek Him with all of your being.
....With HDTV being up to 3 times the resolution of that encoded on DVD, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to tell the difference......
So what? Will the super duper resolution improve the programs at all? Will it really matter that you can now clearly see the mediocre shave or makeup job of your favorite news person? Will exploding cars and crashing airplanes look that much more spectacular? Will the bloodied dead bodies really be that much more shudder inducing?
Do you really thing that huge numbers of people will try to shoe horn a 50 inch+ set into their small apartment? After all people are willing to watch TV on a tiny iPod screen!
Especially in view of the draconian DRM restrictions and consumer confusion, I predict the uptake of the new formats will disappoint their vendors. The super high fidelity SACD and music DVD formats are duds because the just plain music CDs or even highly compressed mp3 formats are plenty good enough for most people. It will be the same for the the new HD DVD formats. On the millions of existing TVs the new quality will not be noticed and therefore the broad masses will not see any reason to buy these expensive new toys until their prices come down to what ordinary equipment costs now.
Has there ever been any DRM that has NOT been hacked eventually? If I have a secret message for a receiver, the person receiving the message has to be able to have the key at some point. In order to watch a movie the user has to be given the key. Once there is a key SOMEWHERE it can be accessed and be used to decrypt the movie. Unless the new DVD players get their keys from a network connection separately for each film, the key has to be either on the DVD or in the player. Either way, the key will be found and used to decrypt the movie data. There is NO way to hide the key, since at some point it has to be gotten out to open the lock. At that point it can be grabbed, copied and then used at will. A good modern logic analyzer connected to a working player should be able to grab the key at some point.
....Can you describe the shape of the search space?.....
The hemoglobin molecule is a three dimensional structure of thousands of atoms, each of which, like a complex machine must be in the correct place, in order for the machine to fulfill its function. Making such a structure by any means other than careful attention to the intended application of such a complex machine is incredibly unlikely.
There are various orders of machines. The simplest are like a lever, one input and one direct output. A higher order is the feedback mechanism enabling self correction. The thermostatic heating system is a common example. Still higher on the scale are self modifying machines like computers that can tailor their algorithms and programming to a large number of inputs, producing a number of desired outputs or actions. Next come self repairing machines. We haven't dome very much here yet, but in biological systems this is common. A broken bone or cut finger will heal. Higher up yet are self-reproducing machines. Again we have not achieved this technology yet, but it is a very fundamental activity, if not the defining activity of what we call 'life".
Evolution, ID and creationism are all unprovable and ultimately must be taken by faith. In reading evolutionary literature, it is the rare article that doesn't include phrases such as "it is believed", or "we assume", or "it appears that" or "we surmise"and other uncertainties. These imply that we don't really KNOW for sure about all these things. So you may continue to believe in purposeless evolution, but I prefer to assume that a wise and powerful God is the author of both creation and the Bible.
.....Better question: Why don't we find any rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian layers? Do rabbits just not sink as deeply into the mud, or did they arrive later via some as yet unexplained path?.....
All of the various fossil finds and their supposed indications of evolution don't give me that much problem. The big problem in my mind with evolution is its idea of simple structures "evolving" into the incredible complex biological systems we see today. It is (another dumb automobile analogy:-)! like an ancient wheelbarrow evolving into a modern automobile. If living systems, even at the molecular, cellular levels are compared to machines, they are unbelievably advanced. I am an engineer, not a biologist, but I am greatly impressed by the incredible engineering evidenced by living devices like the eyes and ears. The radar (sonar really) of bats is an incredible feat of engineering. The navigation systems of migratory birds and insects still hold deep mysteries in their operation. The fact that wales seem to be able to communicate via sub-sonic waves over vast distances is a relatively new discovery. How did some of the complex, multi-host parasitic and symbiotic relationships evolve? Does metamorphosis of a what most people term an ugly caterpillar crawling on a leaf, becoming a beautiful, iridescent butterfly destined for the sunny spring skies, point to something far greater for us humans in an entirely different existence and dimension?
I believe that there is some merit to the idea of evolution, but it fails to satisfy my sense as an engineer that all this complexity came to be without the direct activity of a great mind. There is no way of course to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God, but the natural world to me speaks of a designer, an "engineer" if you will, who conceived and executed this marvelous design of the entire cosmos, both living and non-living. I want to believe that there is a purpose to my existence and it somehow ties in with the purpose for which God designed all these marvels in the first place. The Bible presents a much more satisfying view of our existence, purpose and destiny that any other religion or philosophy. Evolution's godless explanation of how things came to be and its ultimate purposelessness is not very satisfying, neither spiritually nor intellectually. The expensive SETI search testifies that there are others that hope that we are not alone in a cosmos that apart from God seems to have no specific direction and purpose.
Its first fossils were discovered in Germany about 90 years ago. Recent fossil discoveries and recent research on Archaeopteryx argue strongly against the suggestion that it is transitional between reptiles and birds. The rocks in which fossils of Archaeopteryx have been found are designated Upper Jurassic, and thus are dated at about 150 million years on the standard evolutionary geological time scale.
However, since the time of this discovery, Archaeopteryx has become more and more reptile-like until it is now fashionable to declare that Archaeopteryx was hardly more than a feathered reptile. In 90 years, Archaeopteryx has thus evolved from a creature so emphatically bird-like its reptilian ancestry was barely hinted at into a creature some evolutionists declare to be nothing more than a reptile with feathers!
The sudden appearance, in the fossil record, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, is strong evidence that evolution as commonly taught has not occurred.
.....They are written accounts, probably written many years after the events, by people who were hardly objective in their descriptions, and often wrote about events (like the Annunciation and the Nativity) they were highly unlikely to have any first hand knowledge of......
These people claimed to be eye witnesses of the resurrection and were willing to and did die for the truth thereof. How many people do you know that are willing to die for a story the KNOW to be false or mere hearsay? The enemies of Jesus would have dearly loved to squelch these rumors by producing the dead remains of Jesus.
Peter writes in one of his letter to early Christians:
2Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Peter and many others have since died for disseminating these "stories" about the resurrection and the life of Jesus.
Just read the book the told you about. It may be in your library and then tell me your considered opinion. The work itself is in the public domain, so you might even find the text thereof online.
....Why have you noticed this calculation but hordes of biochemists appear to have missed it?..........It's not that they missed it, but that they have deliberately ignored it. In Darwin's time, nobody knew of the incredible complexity of what was then and is still often today called a "simple" cell. Even the tiniest bacterial cell contains trillions of atoms arranged to perform elaborate synthesis of a variety of complex products. Such a cell is in effect an incredibly complex machine or factory making some intricate products. The pancreas cells make a complex hormone family collectively called insulin. The cells in your bone marrow make the molecule hemoglobin that carries oxygen to every one of the cells of your body. Large human factories do not produce products even having even remotely as many working parts as a hemoglobin molecule. It is incredibly complicated. You can see a representation thereof here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin In a lottery, your chances of winning are determined by a series of numbers. If you get 6 of them right, you win the jackpot. However, you only have to get the numbers, but not the order in which they appear, in order to win. Using the lottery kind of math, figure out how many atoms have to be arranged in the correct positions and ORDER for a hemoglobin molecule and then calculate the probability that this will happen. In figuring the probability that all these atoms will self assemble into a hemoglobin molecule, you'll quickly get into numbers that boggle the human imagination. In the random shuffling of cards, as per the article "bad math" you are looking for one and only one particular sequence, not any outcome. Substitute atoms for cards and there is only ONE combination that will make a properly functioning hemoglobin molecule. Life at the molecular level is far too complex to have arisen by any probabilistic known mechanism in the time available in the supposed age of the universe.
......Comparing the compound eyes in insects to the kind of eyes that fish, reptiles, and mammals have is enough to show that insects branched off from fish much earlier than reptiles or mammals......
All these are interpretations of the past. Nobody has ever done an experiment today, that such things really happen. The ID camp can just point out that the good, workable aspects of a design gets re-used, just as we do in human designs. (Put an automobile analogy here):-) !!
Neither evolution nor ID can demonstrate their conjectures by present day experimentation, but you may choose which one you wish to BELIEVE.
......So, you seem to have a pretty good idea of what constitutes speciation.....
Scientists have argued over the exact definition of this term for a long time. How many kinds of dogs are there? How close to dogs are coyotes, foxes and wolves? Want to call them all a species? Probably not. Mice, rats, rabbits and so forth are classed as rodents and house cats, tigers, leopards, lions etc. are all some kind of cat. Evolution claims that all of these had a common ancestor, eventually going back all the way to the primordial ooze. The biblical presentation is that these various "kinds" were created each of them distinct with no crossovers between them. This is what we still find today. Nobody has ever made a transition creature nor found one between say a reptile and a bird. That line has not and cannot be crossed. Yet evolutionists claim that birds descended from reptiles.
.....a little bit of cherry picking from Wikipedia......
I'll give you a little "cherry picking".
The second law of thermodynamics encompasses more than just temperature.
A quote from the WIKI article: "Unlike most other laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and its reliability arises from the huge number of particles present in macroscopic systems. It is not impossible, in principle, for all 10^23 atoms in a gas to spontaneously migrate to one half of container; it is only fantastically unlikely -- so unlikely that no macroscopic violation of the Second Law has ever been observed."
Evolution of simple life forms into complex ones has also never been observed, and although not impossible, it is just as unlikely as the atoms all migrating to only one part of a container. If you have two such containers connected with a pipe, the pressure in both of them will be equal. If you replace the pipe with an intelligently designed power-driven pump, you can get all or most of the atoms into one container only. If you supply energy only, such as heating the pipe, there will be be an equal increase of pressure in both containers. Only the designed pump, supplying energy does the job.
All present experience shows the opposite of the evolution dogma, namely that complex things fall apart into simpler pieces. Do an experiment TODAY that shows the opposite. There is no mechanisms you can show today of what evolution conjectures by faith happened by whatever processes you care to name in the past. You don't have to use the "expensive" processes evolution supposedly employs. Just come up with a plausible experimental simulation. Write a computer program that shows how an eye might "evolve".
.....You miss the most important aspect about the rules of evidence in a court of law.....
So do you. A witness is assumed to be telling the truth unless other evidence also PRESENTED IN court contradicts such a witness. The gospels are four witnesses to the event of the resurrection.
Every lawyer in the US is required to study an extensive volume written by a law scholar by the name of Simon Greeenleaf. It is called simply "The Rules of Evidence" and is still used as the basis of operation of every court of law. This highly esteemed legal scholar has also written a book called "The Testimony of the Evangelists" wherein he examines the biblical record of the four Gospels as we now have, by the same rules of evidence used in our courts today. You may still be able to get a copy for yourself. Its ISBN= 0825427479 I recommend you read that and thereafter read the four Gospel accounts in light of the rules of evidence.
There has been a lot of disagreement about the definition of species and other biological groupings. The point is that there are distinct groupings, whatever they may be called, that cannot cross from one to the other. All the fruit flies in the article (drosophila) always were and remained fruit flies, even though their behavior and other characteristics were different. None of them ever became some entirely new creature.
Crystals are really primitive, endlessly repeating structures compared to even the simplest proteins.
(.....The light having to pass though a layer of blood vessels reduces it's efficiency.....)
Nevertheless, the eye can detect a single photon, yet not be destroyed by the light intesity of a sunny, snowy winter scene. Nobody has made a camera that has the resolution of a healthy human eye, yet is as sensitive to light. High resolution sensors or film are not very sensitive to light and highly sensitive film doesn't have good resolution. When someone builds a camera that can equal this, I'll buy your argument that the eye is a poor design. An Octopus and its eye is designed for a water environment and has a different function for that creature.
(......To dismiss this on the grounds of probability is like being dealt a hand of cards and then claiming it can't be possible since the odds on receiving that hand are so remote.....)
Anybody who has ever done any probability calculations for the formation of even only the basic molecular structures in life forms quickly learns to write double and even triple digit exponents. Study the chlorophyll, hemoglobin or DNA data storage molecules and calculate the chances of any one of such functioning structures evolving by probability mechanisms. Measuring the age of the universe in nanoseconds will still yield numbers many orders of magnitude smaller than these calculations.
(.....If you know of a way to refute the broad theory of evolution.....)
There is no way to refute evolution, because it is based on belief, just like all the other theories of origins. Evolution preaches that the simple became complex over time. That is not according to what we experience in the universe we currently live in. Here everything tends to break down from the complex to the simple.
(.....Would it be right to claim that the theory of gravity is a faith-based decision.....)
No, unlike evolution, the theory of gravity can be and has been experimentally tested TODAY. It is not based on what gravity may have been like in the distant past. Evolution postulates things that supposedly happened in the past, but cannot be tested experimentally today.
....are barely more then basic proteins linked together.....
This statement shows how ignorant you are in micro-biochemistry. Do you know how many atoms have to be precisely arranged in order to make even the simplest functional protein? Has even the best scientist ever synthesized a chlorophyll molecule from basic elements, as found in the so called "simple" algae? Exactly how the chlorophyll molecule in green things captures sunlight and enables green plants to make the food you eat is still largely a mystery. Yet just by "chance" it's process tailored to spectrum of the sun's light. Even WITH our intelligence and a working prototype to study, humans cannot make a working chlorophyll molecule. Do you really expect me to believe that random, probabilistic processes occurring over millions or even billions of years have accomplished to build functional molecular structures such as chlorophyll, hemoglobin and DNA information storage systems? Scientists have actual examples of all of these, yet, by the best INTELLIGENT efforts have never duplicated any of these mentioned. Scientists are learning that the biochemical processes in living cells are unimaginably complex.
......Apparently you are unaware of crystal formations.....
A crystal is nothing more than a repeating structure of atoms arranged by the "shape" of the atoms. Comparing a crystal to a living cell is like having a 800 page book filled with pages of "aaaaaaaaaaaaa" or "ababababababab" as compared to "The Lord of the Rings" or a similar work.
Evolution has no way to account for a structure like the human eye or the existence of consciousness. Perhaps you can show me a peer reviewed scientific article that describes a procedure on how to duplicate any of the complex sensory systems found in mammals. Even today, there exists no manmade image sensor that can register a single photon and yet also not be instantly destroyed by the light input of a snowy, sunny winter scene. Yet your eye can do this. How did it "evolve" to have such a huge dynamic range of light? Even more, man made image sensors come nowhere close to having the sensitivity to light and the incredibly high resolution, all in one instrument. If man cannot duplicate the performance of such structures by intelligent efforts, you expect me to believe they came about by chance? You may have that kind of faith, but I don't.
Slashdot Mirror
.....and law suits (like in France) to make it less DRM-encumbered and more accessible.....
If Apple really wanted to make DRM free music now, they could just sell all music in France without the DRM and tell the record companies: "sorry, but the new law makes the parts in our contract that require DRM null and void, so we just removed the DRM so ITMS is compatible with the other music players". When the music companies see that the absence of DRM makes no difference in the number of iTunes music downloads, perhaps they'll finally be convinced of the foolishness of DRM in the first place and drop it once and for all, everywhere. I suspect though that Apple now LIKES the DRM since it limits competition with the iPod.
....commit to stop sending links in e-mail until they have a better solution for the problem......
Not all banks are irresponsible in this. Neither of my banks has ever sent me any e-amil whatsoever. The have messages waiting for users when they log in to their accounts. Both plainly tell their users NEVER to expect an e-mail from them, especially ones asking for any kind of information or with links to click on.
....bank/eBay/PayPal, etc. needs to talk with them.....
Most of these businesses tell their users that they NEVER ever request any private information in any e-mail. I cannot understand why people regularly ignore this. If everybody payed attention to this simple fact, phishers would not have much success. If my bank wants to contact me, they use a message after I log into my account without being prompted by any outside thing like an e-mail. I have never gotten a message from my bank.. If any do send e-mail, they use my full name, not something generic like Dear **** user or other generic messages which is what the phishers use.
.....Once three months have gone by before the DVD is out and the buzz is gone I generally find my interest in the film has waned as well......
I think that if a film is any good at all, it should be worth waiting for until the DVD comes out. I rent the film, then buy a copy if I think it's worth watching again sometime. Projecting films against a large wall and a pretty good sound system makes for enjoyable "movie nights" for family and friends. Hot buttered popcorn add to the enjoyment. Even those friends who have already seen the film in a cinema enjoy it again with us.
.....I naturally assumed that the iPod would last over a year......
The life of most products is a statistical gamble, especially complex electronics. I had an iPod shuffle that died after only 10 months. Apple sent me a new on in three days, no questions asked, at no cost. I also have a second generation 30G iPod that still works just fine, although the battery holds only about half its normal charge now. So, I win so far and you lost the statistical product life lottery. Maybe you'll be luckier next time.
......people are trying to do stupid things.....
I just patented a molecule. I has two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. It has been known in the past as "water". Anyone who uses it in any form owes me royalties. I also have a patent pending on unique arrangements of protons, neutrons and electrons in 92 distinct groupings. I expect to get a patent soon and then collect money from everybody for EVERYTHING that uses any of these.
......For every Galileo there are a thousand "voices in the wilderness" being ignored by the scientific community simply because their work has no merit.....
I would agree with you that the word "often" is probably misapplied here. The scientific community only ignores the ones that don't cause too many waves by their ideas. The real troublemakers are the ones that come up with evidence that totally destroys the house of cards that the scientific establishment has built up over, sometimes the course of an entire lifetime.
Anyone who brings evidence against the tottering edifice of evolution is going to be violently opposed, no matter what and how much evidence there is brought. It doesn't matter that evolutionary theory makes assertions for what happened in the past, that we do not see happening today nor can be duplicated by experiment. Nothing like this happens in manmade systems either. No human made system ever becomes more complex or sophisticated on its own, yet that is what evolutionists ascribe to the natural world.
....I acknowledge that the laws of physics are "set up" one way or another and that matter and energy obey them. The question of where those laws come from is, for me, well outside of anything that I've been interested in thinking about.....
/. don't seem to be capable of such.
First of all let me say that I appreciate that you are discussing these admittedly controversial things with me without name calling, profanity and personal attacks. Many on
In don't see nearly the chasm or distinction between things and principles of nature and the manmade systems and knowledge. You cannot deny that human laws are made by intelligent beings. Sometimes though the stuff that our politicians come up with may cast doubt on that. (-: !! Why then should natural laws and objects not also be the result of deliberate thought, although an infinitely higher level?
Can you deny that evolution is also subject to these laws "of nature"? If the underlying laws were random, then random evolution would result from them. The fact is that we observe a highly ordered universe obeying consistent unchanging rules. Do the rules by which evolution operated REALLY disinterest you? To me that is akin to seeing a marvelous building and not wanting to learn of its foundations and exploring the wisdom of the architect. This universe is a fascinating place and science to me is one avenue to learn about its designer. By knowing even the tiny amount I do, I stand in awe and respect of the One who formulated its rules by which it was constructed and still operates. However, I also see that there are some serious flaws in the design. The question now is: Were these flaws there in the beginning? Unfortunately science can only study things as they are, not how they may have once been.
From the time I was knee high to a grasshopper, I have always been keenly interested in "what makes it tick?" This was and still is true of both manmade and natural technology. Science is much better at telling how things work than why. Yet the most profound questions we humans ask usually begin with "why". Why is there so much trouble and evil? Why are humans almost constantly at war? There seems to be no end to these "why" questions.
There are still very many gaps in our understanding of even the how questions. Is the brain REALLY the seat of intelligence and consciousness? How does consciousness and thought arise from a pile of cleverly arranged atoms? I'm sure you can think of many others.
Science may, with time answer some of these "how" questions, but the more important "why" questions are outside of its grasp. If you find a watch on a beach, you can study it's design and make certain inferences of the designer. You could examine the watch down to the atomic level, but would never learn WHY the designer made it. Only if the designer decided to communicate with you, could you really know, at least to some degree who he is and what he is like and why he made the watch. If he did communicate, you would have to BELIEVE by faith in such a communication.
I believe, for reasons I could tell you, if you are interested, that the Bible is the authoritative message of the Universe's designer to mankind. He does therein answer many, but not all of the burning "why" question most humans ask in their life. He tells us why there is death and decay. He tells us that there is a purpose and reason for our existence. He tell us of our origin and eventual destiny. The Bible tells us that this One is not disinterested in human affairs and suffering. At one point in time, almost 2000 years ago, he laid aside the privileges and powers of deity and limited Himself to time and space and clothed Himself in a human body and dwelt on earth for 33 years. He entered our world the same way we all do, as a baby.
There are many religions and philosophies and various gurus and teachers have come and gone. None of them claimed to be God and proved it by conquering our greatest, final enemy -- death. If you meet some nuts who claims to b
....My gripe isn't really with the fact that ID supporters are using flawed logic and assuming their conclusion at every turn as long as they do it outside the school system. My problem comes when ID supporters use their whacko ideas of actual scientific principles to shoot down the GOOD work of real scientists.......
You have it wrong if you think I am saying that ALL of evolutionary theory is wrong. I would not dispute that living things are able to make changes in their structures and operation that allows them to survive often severe environmental stresses. The fossil record is fascinating
evidence of creatures, many of which no longer are around today. Frankly, I'd hate to be a snack for a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Actually I am an electronics engineer specializing in control systems. In my beginnings these were all analog electric or pneumatic. I was, as it were, dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. From my perspective as an engineer, I have come to understand that living systems are far too complex to have arisen spontaneously, without the input of thought. Every true science involves experiments and current observations. I believe this must be applied to the study of origins also. The problem is that the main tenet of evolution cannot be experimentally verified. The core of evolutionary teaching I greatly disagree with is that simple parts self assemble into complex systems. Ordinary, every day life, as well as scientific experimentation show exactly the opposite. If your car has a worn, broken part, energy and intelligence must be applied to make your car work properly again.
Any subject not experimentally verifiable is beyond the reach of science. Evolution, ID and creationism are all part of the study of origins and all are unfortunately, not subject to true experimental scientific investigations.
I agree with you that ID and creationism should not be taught in a science classroom, but neither should evolution, at least not that aspect of it that asserts that living systems are the result of mindless processes. The study of origins could be taught on an equal footing in a philosophy or religion course.
Do you deny that electrons, atoms, stars, planets and living things ALL have some level of coherent organization, ie. structure? Structure or coherent organization cannot be achieved without the information that determines that structure. It is that very organization and reliability all throughout the universe, that even makes science possible. All of nature operates by certain universal laws and principles. Again, laws and principles of operation are at their core consistent information that tells use how things work. By understanding, again the application of THOUGHT, we can use the information conveyed by these laws to make predictions and then test these by experiments and careful observations of what is happening NOW. We are creatures essentially bound to the present. Whatever happened in the past cannot be changed, although hopefully we may learn something. The future is unknown. None of us know when we will draw our last breath.
(....We've observed and recorded genetic mutations adding information by any reasonable definition of the word...)
Unfortunately mutations never ADD information but lose or garble it every time. Information is stored in physical systems and because these are subject to decay, (entropy) the information stored therein is never increased, but always lost or corrupted in some way. As a CE you surely know of the elaborate measures taken to ensure that physical entropy does not change the data in any way. The DNA coding system also uses error correcting schemes and redundancy to minimize the loss of and corruption of vital data.
(.....I don't claim that the experts are all wrong....)
If you have studied the history of science at all, you should know, that it often was the lone "voice in the wilderness" that was right, against the prevailing wisdom of the large majority of "experts". Many theories have only fall
.....Go back to the salt water experiment and explain how it fails. We start with a pot of salt water. We apply heat (and heat alone!). The water boils off and we get high entropy steam and low entropy crystals....
Anything that has a specific structure, such as molecules and atoms also contains information inherent in the structure. Sodium chloride molecules are included in this. When they form crystals they arrange themselves according to the structure information inherent in their nature. The level or amount of information in atoms and molecules is sufficient to allow them to form regular, repeating structures under the right conditions. Living structures contain orders of magnitude more information. We see this in manmade things also. An automobile contains much more information than a wheelbarrow.
To reduce entropy requires not only energy, but also information that directs how and where to apply this energy. In my pump example the pump applies energy in a specific way. Increasing entropy also decreases the information or order and vice-versa. Any kind of order is the direct result of adding information to the system. In living systems this information is resident in a storage device called the DNA molecule. Unlike computers, which work on a binary system, DNA operates with a four level code. It is these codes, in combination with energy, that direct the assembly and function of all living things.
A computer is a very good analogy. It consists of hardware, which in itself contains a large amount of information in its very structure, put there by the engineers who designed its chips and circuits. However, that in itself only gives you a very expensive doorstop. In order for a compute to function, it also has to have software, additional information that really determines how it operates. The new Intel based Macs normally run the OSX OS, but with a little judicious hacking can also be made to run Windows. It is the software that determines the "personality" of a computer. In addition to software, every computer requires a source of energy, electrical power.
Living system, especially man, mirror this. You have a physical body which in itself contains and is determined by the codes stored in your DNA. After your body was formed a large amount of information was and is still being loaded, by a process we call education, into a special part of you called the mind. All of this is driven by an energy source called food.
A major problem with evolution is that it really has no good explanation of where information originates. Information or knowledge, software, these are immaterial products of MIND. Software as such has certain properties that exempt it from some laws of physics. It has no mass and therefore is may be transmitted at the speed of light. In itself it is not subject to entropy or decay. Its carriers of course are. That's why computer engineers take great pains to ensure data integrity in spite of hardware failures.
ID and creationism posit that there is a mind wherein all information originates. The nature of this mind however cannot be explored by any science we presently know about. That is where faith comes in. You can have faith in evolution which specifically excludes reference to any mind. However, I have chosen to include the idea of God, the great mind and source of information. He tells us in the Bible, which I believe is His communication to us, in 1Corinthians 13:11-13, the great chapter on the nature of love:
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways. Now we see only a blurred reflection in a mirror, but then we will see face to face. Now what I know is incomplete, but then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. Right now three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.
It is my hope that you may decide by faith to seek this God of love and get to know Him, as I have. You WILL find Him if you seek Him with all of your being.
....With HDTV being up to 3 times the resolution of that encoded on DVD, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to tell the difference......
So what? Will the super duper resolution improve the programs at all? Will it really matter that you can now clearly see the mediocre shave or makeup job of your favorite news person? Will exploding cars and crashing airplanes look that much more spectacular? Will the bloodied dead bodies really be that much more shudder inducing?
Do you really thing that huge numbers of people will try to shoe horn a 50 inch+ set into their small apartment? After all people are willing to watch TV on a tiny iPod screen!
Especially in view of the draconian DRM restrictions and consumer confusion, I predict the uptake of the new formats will disappoint their vendors. The super high fidelity SACD and music DVD formats are duds because the just plain music CDs or even highly compressed mp3 formats are plenty good enough for most people. It will be the same for the the new HD DVD formats. On the millions of existing TVs the new quality will not be noticed and therefore the broad masses will not see any reason to buy these expensive new toys until their prices come down to what ordinary equipment costs now.
......Can the DRM be hacked away or not?.....
Has there ever been any DRM that has NOT been hacked eventually? If I have a secret message for a receiver, the person receiving the message has to be able to have the key at some point. In order to watch a movie the user has to be given the key. Once there is a key SOMEWHERE it can be accessed and be used to decrypt the movie. Unless the new DVD players get their keys from a network connection separately for each film, the key has to be either on the DVD or in the player. Either way, the key will be found and used to decrypt the movie data. There is NO way to hide the key, since at some point it has to be gotten out to open the lock. At that point it can be grabbed, copied and then used at will. A good modern logic analyzer connected to a working player should be able to grab the key at some point.
....Can you describe the shape of the search space?.....
The hemoglobin molecule is a three dimensional structure of thousands of atoms, each of which, like a complex machine must be in the correct place, in order for the machine to fulfill its function. Making such a structure by any means other than careful attention to the intended application of such a complex machine is incredibly unlikely.
There are various orders of machines. The simplest are like a lever, one input and one direct output. A higher order is the feedback mechanism enabling self correction. The thermostatic heating system is a common example. Still higher on the scale are self modifying machines like computers that can tailor their algorithms and programming to a large number of inputs, producing a number of desired outputs or actions. Next come self repairing machines. We haven't dome very much here yet, but in biological systems this is common. A broken bone or cut finger will heal. Higher up yet are self-reproducing machines. Again we have not achieved this technology yet, but it is a very fundamental activity, if not the defining activity of what we call 'life".
Evolution, ID and creationism are all unprovable and ultimately must be taken by faith. In reading evolutionary literature, it is the rare article that doesn't include phrases such as "it is believed", or "we assume", or "it appears that" or "we surmise"and other uncertainties. These imply that we don't really KNOW for sure about all these things. So you may continue to believe in purposeless evolution, but I prefer to assume that a wise and powerful God is the author of both creation and the Bible.
.....Better question: Why don't we find any rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian layers? Do rabbits just not sink as deeply into the mud, or did they arrive later via some as yet unexplained path?.....
:-)! like an ancient wheelbarrow evolving into a modern automobile. If living systems, even at the molecular, cellular levels are compared to machines, they are unbelievably advanced. I am an engineer, not a biologist, but I am greatly impressed by the incredible engineering evidenced by living devices like the eyes and ears. The radar (sonar really) of bats is an incredible feat of engineering. The navigation systems of migratory birds and insects still hold deep mysteries in their operation. The fact that wales seem to be able to communicate via sub-sonic waves over vast distances is a relatively new discovery. How did some of the complex, multi-host parasitic and symbiotic relationships evolve? Does metamorphosis of a what most people term an ugly caterpillar crawling on a leaf, becoming a beautiful, iridescent butterfly destined for the sunny spring skies, point to something far greater for us humans in an entirely different existence and dimension?
All of the various fossil finds and their supposed indications of evolution don't give me that much problem. The big problem in my mind with evolution is its idea of simple structures "evolving" into the incredible complex biological systems we see today. It is (another dumb automobile analogy
I believe that there is some merit to the idea of evolution, but it fails to satisfy my sense as an engineer that all this complexity came to be without the direct activity of a great mind. There is no way of course to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God, but the natural world to me speaks of a designer, an "engineer" if you will, who conceived and executed this marvelous design of the entire cosmos, both living and non-living. I want to believe that there is a purpose to my existence and it somehow ties in with the purpose for which God designed all these marvels in the first place. The Bible presents a much more satisfying view of our existence, purpose and destiny that any other religion or philosophy. Evolution's godless explanation of how things came to be and its ultimate purposelessness is not very satisfying, neither spiritually nor intellectually. The expensive SETI search testifies that there are others that hope that we are not alone in a cosmos that apart from God seems to have no specific direction and purpose.
.....So what's your take on archaeopteryx?.....
Its first fossils were discovered in Germany about 90 years ago. Recent fossil discoveries and recent research on Archaeopteryx argue strongly against the suggestion that it is transitional between reptiles and birds. The rocks in which fossils of Archaeopteryx have been found are designated Upper Jurassic, and thus are dated at about 150 million years on the standard evolutionary geological time scale.
However, since the time of this discovery, Archaeopteryx has become more and more reptile-like until it is now fashionable to declare that Archaeopteryx was hardly more than a feathered reptile. In 90 years, Archaeopteryx has thus evolved from a creature so emphatically bird-like its reptilian ancestry was barely hinted at into a creature some evolutionists declare to be nothing more than a reptile with feathers!
The sudden appearance, in the fossil record, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, is strong evidence that evolution as commonly taught has not occurred.
.....They are written accounts, probably written many years after the events, by people who were hardly objective in their descriptions, and often wrote about events (like the Annunciation and the Nativity) they were highly unlikely to have any first hand knowledge of......
These people claimed to be eye witnesses of the resurrection and were willing to and did die for the truth thereof. How many people do you know that are willing to die for a story the KNOW to be false or mere hearsay? The enemies of Jesus would have dearly loved to squelch these rumors by producing the dead remains of Jesus.
Peter writes in one of his letter to early Christians:
2Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Peter and many others have since died for disseminating these "stories" about the resurrection and the life of Jesus.
Just read the book the told you about. It may be in your library and then tell me your considered opinion. The work itself is in the public domain, so you might even find the text thereof online.
....Why have you noticed this calculation but hordes of biochemists appear to have missed it?....... ...It's not that they missed it, but that they have deliberately ignored it. In Darwin's time, nobody knew of the incredible complexity of what was then and is still often today called a "simple" cell. Even the tiniest bacterial cell contains trillions of atoms arranged to perform elaborate synthesis of a variety of complex products. Such a cell is in effect an incredibly complex machine or factory making some intricate products. The pancreas cells make a complex hormone family collectively called insulin. The cells in your bone marrow make the molecule hemoglobin that carries oxygen to every one of the cells of your body. Large human factories do not produce products even having even remotely as many working parts as a hemoglobin molecule. It is incredibly complicated. You can see a representation thereof here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin
In a lottery, your chances of winning are determined by a series of numbers. If you get 6 of them right, you win the jackpot. However, you only have to get the numbers, but not the order in which they appear, in order to win. Using the lottery kind of math, figure out how many atoms have to be arranged in the correct positions and ORDER for a hemoglobin molecule and then calculate the probability that this will happen. In figuring the probability that all these atoms will self assemble into a hemoglobin molecule, you'll quickly get into numbers that boggle the human imagination.
In the random shuffling of cards, as per the article "bad math" you are looking for one and only one particular sequence, not any outcome. Substitute atoms for cards and there is only ONE combination that will make a properly functioning hemoglobin molecule.
Life at the molecular level is far too complex to have arisen by any probabilistic known mechanism in the time available in the supposed age of the universe.
......Comparing the compound eyes in insects to the kind of eyes that fish, reptiles, and mammals have is enough to show that insects branched off from fish much earlier than reptiles or mammals......
:-) !!
All these are interpretations of the past. Nobody has ever done an experiment today, that such things really happen. The ID camp can just point out that the good, workable aspects of a design gets re-used, just as we do in human designs. (Put an automobile analogy here)
Neither evolution nor ID can demonstrate their conjectures by present day experimentation, but you may choose which one you wish to BELIEVE.
......So, you seem to have a pretty good idea of what constitutes speciation.....
Scientists have argued over the exact definition of this term for a long time. How many kinds of dogs are there? How close to dogs are coyotes, foxes and wolves? Want to call them all a species? Probably not. Mice, rats, rabbits and so forth are classed as rodents and house cats, tigers, leopards, lions etc. are all some kind of cat. Evolution claims that all of these had a common ancestor, eventually going back all the way to the primordial ooze. The biblical presentation is that these various "kinds" were created each of them distinct with no crossovers between them. This is what we still find today. Nobody has ever made a transition creature nor found one between say a reptile and a bird. That line has not and cannot be crossed. Yet evolutionists claim that birds descended from reptiles.
.....a little bit of cherry picking from Wikipedia......
I'll give you a little "cherry picking".
The second law of thermodynamics encompasses more than just temperature.
A quote from the WIKI article: "Unlike most other laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and its reliability arises from the huge number of particles present in macroscopic systems. It is not impossible, in principle, for all 10^23 atoms in a gas to spontaneously migrate to one half of container; it is only fantastically unlikely -- so unlikely that no macroscopic violation of the Second Law has ever been observed."
Evolution of simple life forms into complex ones has also never been observed, and although not impossible, it is just as unlikely as the atoms all migrating to only one part of a container. If you have two such containers connected with a pipe, the pressure in both of them will be equal. If you replace the pipe with an intelligently designed power-driven pump, you can get all or most of the atoms into one container only. If you supply energy only, such as heating the pipe, there will be be an equal increase of pressure in both containers. Only the designed pump, supplying energy does the job.
All present experience shows the opposite of the evolution dogma, namely that complex things fall apart into simpler pieces. Do an experiment TODAY that shows the opposite. There is no mechanisms you can show today of what evolution conjectures by faith happened by whatever processes you care to name in the past. You don't have to use the "expensive" processes evolution supposedly employs. Just come up with a plausible experimental simulation. Write a computer program that shows how an eye might "evolve".
.....You miss the most important aspect about the rules of evidence in a court of law.....
So do you. A witness is assumed to be telling the truth unless other evidence also PRESENTED IN court contradicts such a witness. The gospels are four witnesses to the event of the resurrection.
Every lawyer in the US is required to study an extensive volume written by a law scholar by the name of Simon Greeenleaf. It is called simply "The Rules of Evidence" and is still used as the basis of operation of every court of law. This highly esteemed legal scholar has also written a book called "The Testimony of the Evangelists" wherein he examines the biblical record of the four Gospels as we now have, by the same rules of evidence used in our courts today. You may still be able to get a copy for yourself. Its ISBN= 0825427479 I recommend you read that and thereafter read the four Gospel accounts in light of the rules of evidence.
....Not so...
There has been a lot of disagreement about the definition of species and other biological groupings. The point is that there are distinct groupings, whatever they may be called, that cannot cross from one to the other. All the fruit flies in the article (drosophila) always were and remained fruit flies, even though their behavior and other characteristics were different. None of them ever became some entirely new creature.
.....Crystals are complicated structures.....
Crystals are really primitive, endlessly repeating structures compared to even the simplest proteins.
(.....The light having to pass though a layer of blood vessels reduces it's efficiency.....)
Nevertheless, the eye can detect a single photon, yet not be destroyed by the light intesity of a sunny, snowy winter scene. Nobody has made a camera that has the resolution of a healthy human eye, yet is as sensitive to light. High resolution sensors or film are not very sensitive to light and highly sensitive film doesn't have good resolution. When someone builds a camera that can equal this, I'll buy your argument that the eye is a poor design. An Octopus and its eye is designed for a water environment and has a different function for that creature.
(......To dismiss this on the grounds of probability is like being dealt a hand of cards and then claiming it can't be possible since the odds on receiving that hand are so remote.....)
Anybody who has ever done any probability calculations for the formation of even only the basic molecular structures in life forms quickly learns to write double and even triple digit exponents. Study the chlorophyll, hemoglobin or DNA data storage molecules and calculate the chances of any one of such functioning structures evolving by probability mechanisms. Measuring the age of the universe in nanoseconds will still yield numbers many orders of magnitude smaller than these calculations.
(.....If you know of a way to refute the broad theory of evolution.....)
There is no way to refute evolution, because it is based on belief, just like all the other theories of origins. Evolution preaches that the simple became complex over time. That is not according to what we experience in the universe we currently live in. Here everything tends to break down from the complex to the simple.
(.....Would it be right to claim that the theory of gravity is a faith-based decision.....)
No, unlike evolution, the theory of gravity can be and has been experimentally tested TODAY. It is not based on what gravity may have been like in the distant past. Evolution postulates things that supposedly happened in the past, but cannot be tested experimentally today.
....are barely more then basic proteins linked together.....
This statement shows how ignorant you are in micro-biochemistry. Do you know how many atoms have to be precisely arranged in order to make even the simplest functional protein? Has even the best scientist ever synthesized a chlorophyll molecule from basic elements, as found in the so called "simple" algae? Exactly how the chlorophyll molecule in green things captures sunlight and enables green plants to make the food you eat is still largely a mystery. Yet just by "chance" it's process tailored to spectrum of the sun's light. Even WITH our intelligence and a working prototype to study, humans cannot make a working chlorophyll molecule. Do you really expect me to believe that random, probabilistic processes occurring over millions or even billions of years have accomplished to build functional molecular structures such as chlorophyll, hemoglobin and DNA information storage systems? Scientists have actual examples of all of these, yet, by the best INTELLIGENT efforts have never duplicated any of these mentioned. Scientists are learning that the biochemical processes in living cells are unimaginably complex.
......Apparently you are unaware of crystal formations.....
A crystal is nothing more than a repeating structure of atoms arranged by the "shape" of the atoms. Comparing a crystal to a living cell is like having a 800 page book filled with pages of "aaaaaaaaaaaaa" or "ababababababab" as compared to "The Lord of the Rings" or a similar work.
Evolution has no way to account for a structure like the human eye or the existence of consciousness. Perhaps you can show me a peer reviewed scientific article that describes a procedure on how to duplicate any of the complex sensory systems found in mammals. Even today, there exists no manmade image sensor that can register a single photon and yet also not be instantly destroyed by the light input of a snowy, sunny winter scene. Yet your eye can do this. How did it "evolve" to have such a huge dynamic range of light? Even more, man made image sensors come nowhere close to having the sensitivity to light and the incredibly high resolution, all in one instrument. If man cannot duplicate the performance of such structures by intelligent efforts, you expect me to believe they came about by chance? You may have that kind of faith, but I don't.