Windows Forum

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Evolution The Great Lie

0 helpful
342 replies

by xentity

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Evolutionsist proclaim their good idea is science but in reality severely lacks credible strength on numerous serious scientific failures of the theory. While the logic 'sounds' good and the science 'feels' good, the theory falls drastically short of credible acceptance.

Originally, this good idea was formed over 140 years ago and has undergone severe scrutiny to the point that died hard Darwinist have had to modify their belief into new Darwinism. This lead to the creation of a highly sectarian group of Neo-Darwinist who are headed by Dr. Richard Dawkins. Dr Dawkins published his book, "The Blind WatchMaker" which has become a Bible of sorts to this emergent sect of radicalized atheist.

Some of the scientific failure of this Neo-Darwinist Sect include:

1. The natural occurrence of randomness, which Neo-Darwinism relies upon, does not exist in this natural universe. Scientists and mathematicians unilaterally agree that the universe is a perfectly ordered - indeterminant system which precludes any notion of randomness. Natural randomness cannot be mathematically modelled as the universe is perfectly ordered and randomness is counter to perfect order. So the root premise of Darwinism that biological life is the outcome of chance, random events cannot possibly exist. The Theory fails on its most basic premise.

2. Evolution Theory continues and states that during an alleged random chance event that the conditions were just right for a natural phenonmenon to 'cause' biological life to spark in existence. This apparently was a singularity as there is no durable scientific evidence of a life sparking natural process other than copulation. This fails fundamental scientific rigor that states natural principles, axioms, or processes are consistent, timeless, and ubiquitious throughout the universe. Once again Evolution Theory fails.

3. Once biological life emerged from some sort of protoplasmal premordial pool of goop, over time it 'evolved' into higher life forms and bifuricated into the modern animal kingdom. However, there is no scientific evidence of vertical transspecies evolutionary processes that would be expected to be ongoing. This again is apparently another singularity as this fails fundamental scientific rigor that states natural principles, axioms, or processes are consistent, timeless, and ubiquitious throughout the universe. Once again Evolution Theory fails.

Evolution has failed on three of its most essential postulations. This places all other notions in the Theory as a farce and senseless babble. Once again Evolution is not science and has no strength in science.

Unfortunately, radicalized sectarian elements of the evolutionary movement continue to insist that evolution is a truth. Their tactics range from projection, name calling, and organizing clever prejudicial arguments in support of this baseless theory. Their efforts continue to peddle this farce to innocent children not much different that Radicalized Muslims codify their youth in the Madrassah's.

Perhaps Pink Floyd was more honest than not with their song "Another Brick In The Wall"

342 replies

by tig2

I have said before and will say again- you believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe. I don't care if they are inclusive or exclusive beliefs. I don't really care WHAT you believe... but I will defend your right to believe it.

This topic has been done. To death. At the end of the day, what we know is that we don't know. We have theories. Some of the less fortunate MARRY their theories. This is not a good thing.

I have no problem with the concept that we emerged form some primordial soup. I don't buy it, but if you want to believe it, be my guest.

Global warming is a lot more fun. I learn things there.

by xentity

But there is a group in another thread that I am challenging. That thread was getting to long and would not load on my machine. Perhaps I'll start global Warming thread as I have watched "An Inconvenient Truth".

by tonythetiger

is for Mr. Gore to explain why, if he's so worried, he flies around the country using more fuel in a week than my SUV does in a year!

by Member 25348569

But if it were true, Tigger, in your case it would have been a rich, warming, winter soup with carrots and there would definitely have been croutons...

Neil :x

...and probably a little swirl of cream.

by drowningnotwaving

... you were so much funnier in the good old days when you talked about your miserably failed love life.

Do you still do pictures of cute, famous chicks in bikinis?

But it is a new year, after all.

I'm betting total post count, ummm, 468 in two weeks from today. Anyone interested in an e-wager?

by dmambo

I don't think that this thread will pass 300 in 2 weeks (say by 14-Feb-07 - Valentine's Day!!)

Loser has to use the avatar selected by the winner for a period of 2 weeks.

We on?

by drowningnotwaving

For me:

- It is inappropriate to respond to every single post with another post saying "Good point, can you elaborate?".

For you:

- you cannot call every newbie a "dumb f'ck who has no place in TR" and thus discourage their intercourse. As such.

Is that okay?

And the bet is - over 300 or under 300 by close biz Feb 14.

If it's a tie, do we have to kiss or something? Eeewwwwwwwww.

by xentity

Someone please show me a formula for calculating randomness. I do not want approximations or good estimates. If randomness is a natural phenomenon, show me the math that orders random action.

by tony hopkinson

Random in evolution is not the mathematical abstraction which as you rightly say does not exist in the real universe as far as we understand any of it. But the laymans term of probabilistic.

So evolution is a throw of the dice and a the chance of you coming up six is not random in the real world but the sum of so many factors it approaches the abstraction random mathematically.

In fact there is a good argument that evolution is less random than dice, as some eventualties are as likely as one di coming up a 113.

by xentity

Probabilistic outcomes are ordered and not random. According computer scientist Charles Knuth, randomness is not compatible with the order of the universe. However, there are efforts to approximate randomness but the very nature of randomness is that it cannot be ordered.

If there were probablistic outcomes that life could spark from inert materials then answer why is that process and its order not evident today? Why do we write Horror stories about the process like Frankenstein? What evolution is telling me is that human life is a naturally occuring Frankenstein.

by xentity

I saw that. I also noted that he became interested in Global Warming in 1959 but all his data for the most part was 2001 and later. Everything ended in 2005 which show normal cyclic trending. Except his projections made astronomical claims.

Another scare tactic roaming around out there is we are running out of land and there will be global starvation. That is the next big one.

by jaqui

1) there are many GODS, not one, so "The One God" could not have created anything, he doesn't exist.

2) Randomness? try the mathematics for CHAOS Theory, the stuff used for nuclear physics.
[ your arguement against the three points show a distinct lack of education, or you would know about this mathematics. ]

3) Primordial soup is far more believable than an all powerfull being, which doesn't exist, could create such diversity and WOULD GO TO THE EXTREME of creating evidence that shows a far greater age to everything around us than the creation myth allows for.

Prove, beyond any doubt that Creation happened or go blow bulls.

by drowningnotwaving

... of King Herod, saying to JC, all those years ago:

"[i]turn my water into wine, jewish mofo, or [b]go BLOW A BULL!![/b][/i]"

no, please, stop ....

Jaqui I think you have set the standard by which every single unjustified claim will be measured and met on TR in the future.

GBAB just became the hit phrase.

I already know you have bad-a$$ mum and sisters, but don't tell me that you have a farm as well ??? Filthy dog !!

by jaimzliz

Great Questions
Who am I?
How did I get here?
What am I here for?
Where am I going?
All these are answered by what you believe about how we got here, what you believe about creation

Let's take a look at this great studies
Spontaneous Generation:
A certain branch of scientists called Astrophysicists have found that there are over 60 criteria that are necessary for life on earth. There are at least 60 things that need to happen for us to be able to exist and survive. Life could not exist or form if any one of the following were true:
Earth?s rotation was slower, or faster
We were 2% closer or further from the sun
Earth had a 1% change in sunlight
Earth was smaller or larger
The moon was smaller or larger
We had more than one moon
Earth?s crust was thinner or thicker
Oxygen/Nitrogen ratio was greater or less
Ozone layer was greater or less
?and many, many more!

So what are the chances of spontaneous generation?
The chances of life evolving and developing with all the right components and ingredients over a limitless period of time have been calculated by different mathematicians.
Dr. James Coppedge, the director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California applied all the laws of probability studies to the probability of a single cell coming into existence.
He started with a basic protein molecule one of the building blocks of a cell and had the amino acids bind at a rate one half trillion times faster than they do in nature.
He found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10 (262) years.
To get a single cell would take 10 (119,841) years.
That means if you wrote a one and then all the zeroes behind it you would fill up the entire universe with paper before you could ever write that number.
There is not even one chance in limitless numbers that life could begin and develop as evolutionists claim it did.
Statisticians point out that anything beyond 10(50) is beyond reason, essentially impossible or absurd. Belief in evolution is belief in spite of the fact that it?s statistically impossible and absurd.
Yes! Almost all scientists themselves agree that spontaneous generation is impossible and absurd.
But amazingly they still believe in evolution
To believe that life spontaneously emerged without any evidence whatsoever requires an amazing amount of faith in the impossible. That?s the same accusation hurled at those who believe the world was created by an intelligent God.
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as honestly as an evolutionist can: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, in spontaneous generation.?
Did you get that? He says it?s impossible but he still believes it.
Arthur N. Field said, "What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen--belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works.?
Darwin himself wrote "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!"
Secular Materialism is a religion, and evolution is its dogma and to gain converts it calls for faith in nothing. Nothing but absurd assumptions with not a shred of scientific proof.

Darwin himself wrote "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!"

A Personal God
God the creator is not just some energy force, like a microwave oven, he is personal like us.
How can an impersonal force create personal, relational beings? This is the question that has puzzled both scientists and philosophers.
- There are several things necessary in the act of creating. Intelligence, volition (will), and power are all implied in the act of creating.
- Leonardo Da Vinci needed intelligence, volition, and power to paint the image he wanted to portray. The same is true of intelligent, personal life as we know it. God the creator has intelligence, volition and power to create.
The Judeo-Christian Bible remarkably presents a God who is purposeful, powerful, super-intelligent, and personal. It speaks of this God as an infinite, eternal Creator, who alone made everything there is from nothing. Although he is presented as a fearsome God of law and order, he is also shown to be a God of love who created us for a relationship with himself.
- God communicates with us in a personal way. He doesn?t just send and e-mail once in a while. God did decide to show up one day and the impact was absolutely profound.
Many people have had great influence on history but no one comes even close to the impact of Jesus.
Yale historian, Jaroslav Pelikan said, ?Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries.?
When the great secular historian, H. G. Wells was asked what person had the biggest impact upon world history, he answered, ?Jesus stands first.?

Conclusion
Jesus the Creator
The bible teaches us that Jesus is credited with creating all things
?For by him (Jesus) all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, wether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by and for him.? Col. 1:16
You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.? Rev. 4:11
Consider his life, miracles, claims and impact
Consider that he loved us so much in our sinfulness that he, himself actually paid for our sins by what he did on the cross of Calvary
His followers were convinced he was more than a mere man, he was God
They saw him resurrected after his crucifixion on a cross and all of them died martyrs deaths because they knew he was who he claimed to be
Now what about you? God is personal and seeks to know you personally. Choose to receive Him today and find truth and life.

more on this.
http://www.kpcministries.org/pdf/Creation-evolution%20jan%2021.pdf

by tony hopkinson

You've fell into a classical philsophical error anthropomorhism.

So humans would n't exist on this planet if things were different.

And.

Perhaps something else would. Perhaps in a galaxy far far away something else would exist and wonder why.

Hopefully they wouldn't so be arrogant that they thought the universe was created simply to give them a place to exist in.

Here's a famous quote for you

"It's not life as we know it Jim"

If there is a creator, why should it desire worship? Don't tell me what the church wants or what you want, why does god need your adulation?

by maxwell edison

[i]"God does not play dice"[/i]
-- Albert Einstein

[i]"The One God could not have created anything, he doesn't exist."[/i]
-- jaqui

One cannot prove, scientifically or otherwise, the nonexistence of God. Albert Einstein knew this; Stephen Hawkings knows this; but jaqui does not know this?

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html

One can "believe" that either there is or there isn't, but neither can be proved.

by jaqui

you can't prove creation.
just like evolution can't be proven beyond any doubt.
[ there is evidence to support evolution, but not creation ]

God is a lie, Creation is a lie.
[ multiple gods, not one god. ]

by absolutely

Admittedly, the above retort to Einstein's "God does not play dice" quote is not an actual quote from Neils Bohr, or any other scientist responsible for quantum theory. I imagined it, which makes it as valid as any god, which is nothing more than something imagined by somebody else.

Assertion of the existence of a thing, gods included, requires proof. Statement of the [i]non[/i]-existence of gods, whose existences are unproven, is only an abbreviation of the statement "God's existence is [i]not[/i] proven, and I will not help you to pretend otherwise."

by maxwell edison

Prove, beyond any doubt that human-caused global warming is happening or go blow bulls.

Some people worship on the alter of God, while others worship on the alter of radical environmentalism -- neither being able to conclusively "prove" their assertion.

by absolutely

You claim the research is biased but refuse to support that claim by analysis of the data. Argumentum ad hominem doesn't cut it here. This is not high school, dude.

by xentity

2) Randomness? try the mathematics for CHAOS Theory, the stuff used for nuclear physics. PERFECTLY ORDERED INDETERMINANT SYSTEMS ARE CHAOS THEORY! RANDOMNESS IS NOT.

THE POSTING IS NOT ABOUT CREATIONISM. IT IS ABOUT EVOLUTION.

GO STUDY. IN FACT, READ MAKING A NEW SCIENCE BY JAMES GLIECK OR TURBULENT MIRROR

by tony hopkinson

can't think of anything he put on paper that could be used to refute evolution, or creation. Evolution is chaotic, in fact biologists were some of the first people to spot chaos.

I suggest you read him again, may be this time with the blinkers off.

by kjell_andorsen

By every God, Goddess, DemiGod and random spirit ever invented by man, when will you people stop?

Did you ever take basic High-school level science? Have you actually read ANY of the hundreds, nay THOUSANDS of peer reviewd papers on Evolutionary theory or are you content to just read blind, religious criticism of sound scientific theory?

Yes, Evolutionary theory has undergone much change in the last 140 years, this is how science works. Physics have undergone much change in the last 140 years, as has chemistry and EVERY single branch of science. Science is not static and does not aim to be, it is constantly evolving (heh) as new evidence is discovered and new facts come to light.

As for random process, to say no such thing happens naturally is a blatant contradiction of all available evidence, events we wo9uld classify as "random" occur every single second of every single day. However if you think evolution is all about "randomness" you once again demonstrate ignorance, evolution is very much an ordered and systematic process as any biologist will tell you.

Also you confuse Evbolutionary theory with Biogenesis. Evolutionary theory does not deal with how life got started, it simply deals with how life has developed since it appears. To say that Evolutionists or "Darwinists" make any claims to how life got started is ignorant at best, deliberatly misleading at worst. Sure there are some people who favor the Evolutionary model who also have various hypothesis' as to how life originated, but these are not part of Evolutionary theory itself.

As for you third point, this is a blatant falsehood, any cursory search of Scientific journals will discover there are indeed many examples of transitional fossils. Check http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html for further documentation.

So once again a creationist attempting to disprove Evolution only manages to demonstrate their own complete and utter ignorance of the subject.

by xentity

Evolution must reach back to a origin. It has to in order to be a valid natural process.

My third point is not about a fossil record. It is about a natural process of evolution. If the process existed eons ago, how come that same process is not working on life today? Why don't we observe living examples of life undergoing evolutionary experiences? For example there should be human forms evolving at the various stages living today simply because the natural process set in at different times on basic life forms. Why do those basic life forms still exist but are not evoloving?

The assault on my education is a projection technique to redirect the argument. I happen to have over 200 college quarter hours (not semester hours) in highly technical training with 10 quarters of aqdvanced mathematics.

Also I am not a creationist nor was my posting about creationism.

by kjell_andorsen

OK, I'll try to make this as simple as possible.

Evolutionary process is something that occurs over thousands, tenss of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even MILLIONS of years. It's something that occurs over hundreds of generations, and so to observe human evolution we would need to do so over a MUCH greater span of time than tyhe 140 years that evolutionary thoery has been around.

Yes, many older lifeforms are still around because they are still biologically sound, often mutations and random selection will cause the mutation to be in direct competition with the "Old" version of the organism, and in such cases natural selection will usually favor the positive mutations while negative mutations die out. This IS Observable in several insect species. However, in other cases the "new" organism will adapt to a slightly different niche in the Ecosystem and thus will not be in direct competion with the "old" one and both versions can co-exist. Again, this is pretty basic biology.

I'm glad you have all this technical training, but it's apparent from your statement that very little of this was in Biology.

by drowningnotwaving

.

Are you serious?

WildThrill?

Did I get that right? W i l d T h r i l l ??

Yup. I did.

Was this name ordained for you, or did you seriously think of it all by yourself ???

No help from the local Calgary pastor?

[b][i][u]L O L[/b][/i][/u]

How do I get that in 58-point font??

by xentity

I thought of it myself.

As for the Calvary Pastor, well he thinks I am the anti-Christ. My mama always told me I was a little demon. Wait until I tell her how I turned out!

Seriously, the Pastor was a little over reactionary but understandable and did not follow Christian principles - not understandable. The whole ordeal could have been avoided had I corrected it on the spot but I was a little shell shocked and unfortunately did not. Later attempts to correct it lead to a spiraling wild ride.

Anyhow, I am in this forum for the thrill.

by drowningnotwaving

I think you're simply a goose.

But undoubtedly an enthusiastic goose at that.

You must encourage lots more posts on this important and critical topic.

by maxwell edison

God is not a lie. God is unproven. Just because something is unproven, it doesn't make it a lie. A lie is a deliberate mistruth. God may or may not be the truth, and any belief, one way or the other, is anything BUT a lie. If you want to call God a lie because His existence cannot be proven, then to deny God's existence is ALSO a lie since it cannot be proven either.

by xentity

Max:

The philosophical definition of God, or any diety, is that he is supernatural and absolute truth. Thus, being supernatural the natural does not constrain him except if\when he acts in the natural. For example he has never unzipped the sky and stuck his face in to check out things.

We possess evidence of his existence and that is the Bible and its claims. The point behind Intelligent Design is to corroborate discovery with those claims. Despite the radicalized atheistic movement to numb the minds of children with psuedo science and diminish the wonder of life to burping frankengoop a billion years ago is disgusting.

Check out this first part of a two part series on proving God.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1189/is_6_271/ai_57011033/pg_1

by drowningnotwaving

... you shoot yourself in the foot, head and any other physical, metaphysical or existential bit you choose to select.

e.g.:

1. The bible isn't "evidence". It's a book or more importantly a collection of lots of people's writings. In turn those writings have been physically reinterpreted (that is, from language to language) and intelligently reinterpreted (in terms of meanings).

Your belief of it being evidence is genuinely fantastic, for you. Good on you.

Your (inherent and stated in other places) claim that there is a single consistent interpretation (for those that study hard) is arguable at best, laughable on evidence.

But worst is that your claim that it is unswerving and undoubtable evidence means you are forcing that belief upon me.

2. The objective of the writings and fanatics behind ID are not to collaborate the Bible but to attempt to burn holes in science. Just read the Wedge. Their aim is purely power, politics and control. Not science nor the truth. Remember, they (the leaders of the ID thought process) go to great pains to steer clear of the conclusion that the one God is the actual intelligent designer.

Again, that conclusion doesn't even fit the basic premise of ID irrespective of the legitimacy or otherwise of the theory.

And, as discussed and stressed many times, God doesn't feel the need for proof. Why is it that you know more than him?

3. How do you know God can't unzip the sky and look in? He's apparently split the oceans, turned some dude into a pillar of salt, not to mention inventing the heavens and the earth while he was IN THE DARK !!!!

Without being too silly, you can have no idea about the manifestation of your God at any point in time or to anyone else.

Feel free to relish in the fact that you share a manifestation with others. That is great.

4. Much of the 'science' of evolution is well known and well accepted as fact.

What is not fact is some people's 'conclusion' that says "since there is evolution, therefore there CANNOT be a God". Max makes this latter point repeatedly and much better than me.

By God, Evolution is not proof of no God !!

But to say that what we teach the kids in school is pseudo-science is simply incorrect. Even your ID people do not dispute the science behind much of what is taught as evolution.

5. To dismiss a scientific theory in its entirety because it has holes is the equivalent of blasphemy.

The fact that a scientific theory has holes should encourage further scientific investigation.

Further, to (inherently) suggest that we do not teach kids ANYTHING until every single aspect of any particular science is determined (and agreed without dispute) is demonstrably stupid, not to mention somewhat impractical.

-0-0-0-

You have an eminently arguable topic ('winnable' is a different question of course).

By bringing in these other points and seemingly inextricably linking them to the core, simply reduces your credibility.

Alternately, it makes you look like a JW or Seventh Day Adventist on a Saturday afternoon. You're knocking on the front door to make sure you are being seen to "witness" to strangers, but you're not to actually listening to the person on the other side.

Why can't you just stick to one point and argue it consistantly?

Of course you could change your name again ...

edit shpeeling

by tony hopkinson

Everyone knows Ahura Mazda created life, it's all nicely written down Mazdayasana.

The bible is evidence of god, because in it it describes the existence of god.

I'll be back later, got to pop out and kill a few dragons with Bilbo.

Say I just found this really cool ring, I can ditch my x-ray specs now.

What do you think I am, some sort of superstitious heathen who thinks thunder is the gods fighting?. Try harder.

Ahura Mazda is "the one uncreated god", so obviously it must have created all the others.

A bit of logic even you can get your head round.

by deepsand

Main Entry: meta?phys?i?cal

Function: adjective

1: of or relating to metaphysics

2 a: [i]of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality [b]beyond what is perceptible to the senses b: supernatural[/b][/i]

by zoso967

the tactics you describe are actually in use by ID theorists not evolutionists.

besides, evolution happened. creation didn't. ..

by deepsand

He's been trying this ruse since he 1st arrived here. You'd think by now he'd know that we're onto him.

by xentity

I am not talking about the incubation time of a single process forming to what ever the completion will be in the future. I am talking about the process itself. If it is a natural process it should be ongoing right now at various stages that are empirical.

If the evolutionary process is natural then it acts on every single primordial globule in this universe. Some globules began their evolutionary journey 100 million years ago. Some started 50 million years ago. Another started yesterday. If the evolutionary process is a true one then we should not be worried about a fossil record. We should have Cromagnum's, Neanderthals, and homosapiens co-existing today.

Your insect analogy is discussing adaption and mutation not evolution.

Let me rephrase that to the skeletal and biological frames not the minds because I see Cavemen thinking all the time. Obvious minds have not evolved.

by Member 25348569

Of course the processes that constitute "evolution" are going on now. We can see it happening all around us. Just because, in the last few hundred years, Man hasn't evolved any further is not surprising because the time scales are far too short and Man has also reached the point where he is modifying his environment and therefore "survival of the fittest" is no longer relevant.

The reason we [b]don't[/b] have Neanderthals is becuase Homo sapiens was more successful. The reason we do have crocodiles after 50m years unchanged is because nothing better has come along to oust them from their niche.

See the last post in this thread and then explain how mutation and adaptation are PREVENTED from causing evolution.

by Member 25348569

A caveat, for the moment, is that we need to set the scope of this. When [b]I[/b] talk about evolution - Darwinian or "neo-Darwinian" - I am talking about the basic thrust of "Origin of Species" and Darwin's original description for the mechanism of and explanation of the existence of different species. This has obviously been modified and expanded with the discoveries of Mendel and other near contemporaries of Darwin and further modified by more modern discoveries such as genetics and DNA and modified further by improvements in dating and other palaeo' techniques. I suspect, though, that Darwin would still recognise his theory so we do have a common framework.

What I won't allow you to do under any circumstances is to link aspects of biology with the inability of any other science to - yet - explain everything. There is no link between the more speculative theories concerning the picoseconds after the Big Bang and whether or not Man and Gorilla have a common ancestor except that, for some reason, you seem to see either as a threat to your faith.

If we can start from here then I have no problems in widening the discussion later. If you can't hold it in check and you're going to attempt to beat me up with cosmology then I'm not going to play. I'm not even going to discuss (much) the formation of the first life as, although it's crucial to YOUR faith, Darwin didn't have much to say about it and it's a completely separate branch of science. It does, however, figure in your "evolution killer" points so I'll be brief.

1) is a bit meaningless. Chaotic behaviour is observable. We can SEE it. All we require for atoms or molecules to interact in a "random" or random fashion is the sort of movement displayed when studying brownian motion and if you think that's ordered...

2) Singularity? Well no one knows at all and without the services of a TARDIS, we'll never know. Life could have arisen one, ten or a billion times and been knocked back each time. What we got, though, when we did get successful life was a change in the rules! So once is perfectly acceptable in that the existence of life may act such that it precludes the creation of other life. How? Well, it sucks up all of the nutrients for a start.

3) In more detail, now, as we're into the proper scope. With this one, you have it completely backwards. You must agree that the mechanisms of microeveolution are understood and the phenomenon is observed every day. Dog-breeding is an example of directed microevolution in that the progeny of a labrador x labrador is a labrador and a labrador x mutt is a mutt with some labrador characteristics. So we don't have different species. Do we agree?

This is all theoretical because we don't have the necessary conditions of separation and we don't have the time to observe it but this, in simple terms, is how it happens.

Let us suppose we have a small animal, the murgle, that is pretty widespread across a large island. Murgles move around so the gene pool is pretty much uniform. Sea level rises and cuts off a small sunset of the murgle population on what is now a separate island. Despite the uniformity of the gene pool, some traits no longer exist in this population. Genetic drift and random mutations introduce new traits in the small-island murgles and different new traits in the large-island murgles. Sea-levels fall and the two populations interbreed and the new traits from both populations are merged across the gene pool.

Sea level rises again and cuts off a small sunset of the murgle population on their separate island. Again, despite the uniformity of the gene pool, some traits no longer exist in this population. Genetic drift and random mutations introduce new traits in the small-island murgles and different new traits in the large-island murgles. Sea-levels fall and the two meet but this time the mutations have caused a gradual change in the scent that triggers mating to the point that the two populations do not interbreed because they don't recognise a mate. The gene pools of both sets of murgles continue to produce mutations and, this time, murgles and neo-murgles are competitors. This forces the adoption of traits in both populations that are positive in ensuring continued existence and reproduction. Given that the gene pools of these two sets of animals are no longer the same, there is no reason to believe that the adaptations would be the same and tghe groups drift further apart genetically. At which point we have murgles and nurgles, I leave for you to decide.

-------------------

Given that the mechanisms of microevolution have been demonstrated - Darwin's Finches were the first example of note - you have no alternative but to accept microevolution. What you cannot do - and I have posed this question to other "anti-evolutionists" - is tell me how the scenario above could NOT have happened. What is there to PREVENT speciation? There is no answer.

Let's start this simple and work up from there.

Neil :)

by xentity

Neil, we need to establish the universe as either ordered or random. I choose ordered.

The formal mathematical definition of randomness is that it does not have a pattern and cannot be ordered.

Every scientist, mathematician, and computational engineer (that I know of) will tell you that this universe is under Chaos Theory and is a perfectly ordered and an indeterminant system. Indeterminance is not random. Indeterminance is ordered and a probabalistic outcome. These are unsually the outcome of simultaneous equations of polynomials to the nth order. One could work up differential equations and locate the boundaries within which outcomes would occur. Thus, limiting possible outcomes to a small group of possibilities.

If the universe is ordered then there would be universal beauty in it. Randomness would not possess such beauty.

Randomness and order are incompatible.

by Member 25348569

We need simply to establish whether the processes under question will WORK. Given that they do - and demonstrably so - it doesn't matter if you decide that the universe is made up of shades of green (it isn't).

Step back from the wood and the trees will still be there.

by xentity

Neil, the science I know is not the science you know. If we cannot agree on the basic order of the universe then we have no common ground to work from.

We'll just agree to disagree. I understand much of what you are saying and it sounds good.

I went to school in the late 60's and 70's. I often find that people of different origins and times have, in some cases, drastically divergent understandings than my own. One thing I find is that most look at the world from inside the fish bowl. I like to travel, in my minds eye, far beyond the fish bowl and look back. This gives me a totally different perspective.

by xentity

Neil, we need to establish the basic science rigor regarding natural processes. First, let us consider basic definitions.

Axioms: Established as rule, principle, or law. These axioms are durable, consistent, and unchallengable set in permanence.

Postulate: To assume as a premise or axiom.

Theory: A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established axioms regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Natural processes are discovered, testable, and observable. They are consistent through out the universe and throughout time. They do not operate once then cease to operate. Natural processes are not selective or random in their application. The process of a volcano reaching the surface and erupting has been the same since the Earth formed.

Evolution purports a natural process that is a singularity in occurence. It only happened once to a specific set of "Adam and Eve" globules and all biological life emerged from that. Yet those kinds of globules have been are present through out time but the natural process of evolution has never acted on those globules?

This has significant implications. If no other globules on Earth never sparked into existence then how can we reasonably believe there is life on other planets. The process is dormant. It is not consistent nor reliable. It fails basic scientific rigor.

by Member 25348569

The original set of circumstances on earth were such that the formation of life was possible - perhaps even inevitable given sufficient time.

HOWEVER, once life was established, it changed the parameters of the system making the generation of further life impossible or unlikely.

If your fist occurrence changes the ground rules to make repetition impossible, the "singularity" argument just doesn't work. Only if the conditions remain the same do we require reproducibility.

It's also possible - we just don't know - that multiple occurrences of life happened and failed or happened and then one remained.

What we do know from such things as cytochrome c, is that just one form of life remained to give rise to everything else.

The same pattern is perfectly acceptable for other planets to give it a try.

by deepsand

""Adam and Eve" globules "?

I don't know which Thoery of Evolution you've been reading, but it's not the one that the rest of us know.

Stop trying to assert as facts that which are but assumptions convenient to your purpose.

by xentity

W.T.F.O.?

MicroEvolution, as you call it, is a known process of cross breeding WITHIN a species. This creates not a new species. In some cases the outcome is a hybrid that cannot reproduce. Other people have attributed microevolution to another biological process known as mutation and adaption. This is nothing more than a species adjusting to environmental changes.

In neither case is it honestly trans-species evolutionary processes at work nor is it an indication of such a process.

I agree there is no change in species.

by Member 25348569

Never mind, though. Anyone else reading it will understand because I made it simple enough.

Try reading my post again. :)

by xentity

Your argument for speciation sounds a little like a variant of Nature verses Nuture.

DNA is a template that contains information and has information applied to it. Environmental factors affect the gestation cycles when DNA and nano technology is supposed to control the process of forming life. There are inherent errors in the replication process and viruses cause defects to the DNA strand. But With all these imperfections the DNA markers for a species remain consistent.

The animal kingdom tree of life follows this breakdown; Kingdom, Phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, breed, and gender. It originally ordered known life into DNA marker similiarities not DNA progressions. The argument for speciation suggest that genes are "modified" over time forming newer species within a genus. If this is true the tree begins at the wrong location breaking biological life in to microbes, animals, and plants. There needs to be a higher order unifying all these kingdoms. Allegedly microbes and ameobas is were the life originated but its a separate kingdom not a higher order?

by Member 25348569

but it was so simple, so "Jackanory", that I'm not going to repeat it or expand on it.

I know what DNA is and I am pretty well clued up on taxonomy. When the divisions into the different taxonomical levels was first used, no-one had the slightest idea about DNA and very little idea about any other aspects of genetics. Despite that, we still use the same organisational structures today. One up for evolution!

However, you don't seem to understand. The taxonomical definition of any species do not completely represent its relationship with other species.

Cladistics defines the relationship of organisms, current and fossil, by their position within a tree structure based on their divergence from a common ancestor. The phylogeny of an organism is the pathway through that tree that ends with the organism. This is tending to replace the taxonomic nomenclature that you outlined in your post.

The common ancestor of two "clades" - tree branches - is located at the tree's nodes. The taxonomical levels operate at the nodes.

The common ancestor (the base of the tree) gave rise to three branches: bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes. The last one includes us. Bbut us, and all complex plants and animals are up at the "twigs" of the evolutionary tree.

You need to learn a little more before you criticise.

:)

by deepsand

"a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding"

Nothing more, nothing less. No mention of "DNA marker similarities" or "DNA progressions." The inclusion of DNA as being determinant of an observational result is a construct of your own making.

by xentity

The natural universes base state is digital in nature indicating that the natural universe may be an irrevesible computational algoryhthm.

The thinking originates from atom smashing experiments that indicate the smallest existence of matter occurs in the Planckian realm. The point just before matter vanishes it is of discrete size, length, and mass. Hence, matter has a on and off state somewhat digital in nature.

This information theme is repeated throughout nature in natural holography, thermodynamics, DNA, and other systems. Molecular nano-machines get the information stored in DNA endowing biological life with atomic precision.

The problem we are confronted with is the origin of this information.

I propose that our reality may, in fact, be a more along the lines of a computational algorhythm executing and our live and sense of consciousness may be limited to a 'honey pot' of sorts. I don't think its like the Matrix but the Matrix did take its idea from this concept.

Life forms are 'turned' on or off by applying information to the DNA template. Seems to be some credible evidence to this notion because some species suddenly appear without any build up to their existence. It is as though someone, an animator, over time has been testing out different life forms.

by tony hopkinson

Atomic precision is drastically limited by the uncertainty principle.

An atom is much larger than a plank length (which after all is a calculation of the limit implied by the uncertainty principle).

So atomic would be about as precise as using footballs to work out the volume of an egg cup.

Precision < 1 football !

by deepsand

You seem to fail to understand the distinction between "quantitized," or "discrete," and "digital."

Not to mention the fact that "probabilistic" behavior is [b]not[/b] quantitized.

Now who's touting science fiction?

by dmambo

The few posts that we include in this portion will not count toward the 300. But an honorable wager between honorable parties doesn't need many rules. Although I must say that I expect and hope that many who might typically fall prey to this thread are sick enough of the many other threads that have gone on before that they'll stay away with a "been there - done that" attitude.

If it's a tie, why don't we allow some disinterested 3rd party to select avatars for both of us?

You don't have to worry about me being involved in this type of thread. I stay a long way away from religious debates. See, I'm Catholic, so I don't read the Bible and don't have the faintest idea what's in the damn thing! :)

by deepsand

Oh, for the old days, and threads like [i]EL[/i]; they just don't make'em like that anymore.

by dmambo

You got 45 posts over the weekend. Even this post will help as it'll show up in the posts from my contacts for 26 people :)

I think I got the avatar picked out, but I don't want to get cocky. I watched the New England Patriots blow an 18-point lead in the NFL playoffs and I'm a life-long Boston Red Sox fan. Do a little research and you'll understand what that means. (It means I've lost a lot of bets!!!)

by dmambo

I think I'll go with the portrait of GWB with the American flag in the background :)

by tony hopkinson

How in Ahura Mazda's name can a probabilistic outcome be ordered? If it was ordered it would be deterministic.

As I said evolution is not random in the mathematical sense. The theory is effectively probabilistic but our only record of outcomes are the successes. Those were determined by environment which is another gigantic range range of factors.

Indeed environment must be a massive constraint otherwise the universe would be teeming with life.

If there is a creator, the only thing it could have done is create the conditions for life which is another circular argument because a deity must by definition be alive.

If you want to stick to reason and logic, then all you can say is the creator created evolution. I can't use evolution against that argument.

Just take it on the chin, like the popes had to from Copernicus and Galileo.

Frankenstein ('s monster) was an unnaturally occurring creation. Ms Shelley pre-dated Mr Darwin.

by xentity

Neil, you are asking me to embrace a false postulation of randomness in order to adequately explain your position.

Either the universe is ordered or not. If we agree its ordered then there is a specific science that emerges. If we accept randomness, then there is no order and anything is possible.

I thought we are talking science not science fiction?

by Member 25348569

"Either the universe is ordered or not" has no relevance in this discussion for me. I'm talking about observable phenomena. EOM.

by xentity

It seems to me that carbon based life requires water, energy, and nutrients at a minimum. But that is not enough to cause life to form. Soup kitchen experiments use pressure, heat, and various methods of exchanging energy and cannot seem to spark life.

There also seems to be character in all living things and the ability to communicate. Flowers use bees and the wind to spread their pollens which have encoded messages sent to another flower telling nano-machines there what to do. Animals communicate using various methods. Ants leave markers, dolphins chatter, and humans communicate within their bodies, tones, and intellectualizations.

The single crucible argument is convenient but the natural process still needs to be addressed. What natural process could exist in the universe that is not here on Earth? The coldest things get is absolute zero. The hottest temperatures disintegrate matter. The greatest forces collapse a atom into oblivion.

I fail to see any natural argument that can even support the premise of evolution from a protoplasmal goop.

by Member 25348569

What is this obsession that all of you ID people have with wanting a demonstration of everything and wanting it NOW.

Actually, I do know the answer to my own question: the body of human knowledge is expanding and NONE of it - not one iota - points towards your God. Sooner or later that evidence will be sufficient that even the most die-hard will have to accept it or be held up as a hypocrite. This is your only chance to get your insidious theory into your schools.

Chill out, have some patience. The number of people experimenting in this area probably number in the tens - maybe the hundreds but I doubt it - and what you want is for them to reproduce in an afternoon something that took millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years in a laboratory the size of the whole earth.

Get a grip on reality. Just because YOU can't (or won't) "see any natural argument" doesn't mean that those of us who know a little more than you aren't absolutely satisfied.

Neil :D

by xentity

Honest discussion of evolution points (good or bad) is not a discussion nor a promotion of Intelligent Design.

Evolution must stand in its own merits. The basic operations in natural science are:

1. Heat and energy exchanges.
2. Application of forces.

What else is there? If we look at the limits of those operations, ie the coldest and the hottest and the application of extreme forces what heppens?

Even if we mix chemicals together in a variety of unusual occurences there can only be a thermal reaction (heat) and force applied. In the natural there is no indication of an evolutionary spark, a Genesis phenomenon, that causes biological life to begin its evolutionary trek.

Then I say "sfumato". Newtonian science is out the window. I turn to the quantum realm an look at the quantum processes. I look at the quantum brain, quantum computing, and other aspects of this realm. Once again I come up short on answers, not even a glint of a direction.

I attempt to use my imagination and image stream about the origins and evolutionary trek but fail to see anything other than a franken-globule. It is not because a lack of imagination. Even Einstien had some sort of basis to begin from.

Evolution is like a pot of boiling water. It is static when the heat is applied and the water becomes animated. In time it boils rapidly and evolves into vapor.

by Member 25348569

If asked, I would probably say that life is cellular with a complex organization. It undergoes metabolism. It possesses a capacity to grow and reproduce. Ir reacts to differing stimuli.

Then I'd add that life, through natural selection, adapts to its environment in succeeding generations.

But, under this definition, viruses aren't life as they only fulfil the reproduction and adaptation criteria.

I would guess that there are other things that have existed that would fulfil the same criteria as viruses and, given those two attributes, have the capability to grow in complexity. But, because I can't SHOW them to you, you want to take it as a failure of the entire theory and replace it with mumbo jumbo simply because you can't handle the fact that God might not be needed.

YOU MAY NOT DO THAT.

You do not have the scientific training that permits you to make an objective assessment of evolutionary theory. You are just too ignorant and too biased to form any rational conclusion. This has been so obvious from every post that you have ever made under all of your aliases.

You know, I think I'm done with you. I've tried but you wander off into the metaphysical and come out with analogies that make no sense. "Evolution is like a pot of boiling water" - bollocks.

Considering that this thread is called "Evolution, the Great Lie" I wonder why I bothered to comment given such a loaded title. I pose perfectly logical scenarios that slap you in the face as they are so obvious and you wander off the point and witter on (again) about the "quantum brain" and other irrelevant tosh.

I AM WASTING MY TIME WITH YOU. I'M DONE WITH YOU. GOODBYE.

by xentity

What is life? The age old question. Some define life in terms of the natural biological processes. Another may define life in terms of how one lives it as in the case the song "My Way" or "Both Sides Now". And others may view life in terms of the metaphysical. I think Jefferson Airplane combined the metaphysical with drugs and saw life as their mind had some sort of mushroom.

I like to define life as a harmony of all things. The biological is in concert with how life is lived and answerable to the metaphysical.

I never brought God in to our thread, Neil. I never wandered off into the meta-physical in under your original invitation.

The analogy of a boiling pot is actually accurate, but simplistic, for the theory. Some sort of natural process was applied to inert and static matter. It burst into animation (convection in this case) and began an evolutionary trek (becoming steam). In the case of life, you argue, it progressed through a tree having multiple levels based on DNA mutations.

I attempted to make an objective assessment of Evolution Theory based on sound scientific rigor. Unfortunately, we could not establish the most fundamental points of understanding the Theory. We must assess the root of the theory then progress from there. It is difficult to jump in the process a mid stream and accurately assess it truth.

You choose to believe in a random unordered universe. I choose to beleive in a universe that is ordered and has beauty to it. As a result the sciences are somewhat different and we have no common ground to assess the Theories.

I did use some sensationalism in other post of this discussion and in the opening discussion. I don't think people would have posted to a discussion on the "Evolutionary Behavior of a Blue Collar Microbe". Although there are some who may have a weird science of their own.

Anyhow, I invite you to provide further support to your claims.

by Member 25348569

that's the problem - you're not.

My real issue about arguing with you is that you tend to make your comments patronising and antagonistic. This tends to make me combative and brings out the desire to rub your nose in the truth.

"I choose to beleive in a universe that is ordered and has beauty to it" is afine example in the post above. Whether or not I believe that the universe is "ordered" according to your criteria, it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion as I am - was - discussing OBSERVED phenomena and how we explain them.

I have no need to "support my claims". All, I stress ALL, of the true professionals in the scientific fields that influence or are influenced by the theory of evolution accept it. I am sufficiently well versed in current science to be able to objectively assess some posrtions of the theory and I find it harmonious and totally acceptable as a description of something for which some elements will be very hard to observe.

Those who attempt to undermine the theory are - without exception - those for whom this represents a threat to their faith. The two main groups that fight against the overwhelming body of scientific thinking are Christian fundamentalists - mainly American - and Muslim fundamentalists.

I choose to debate with neither once I have established that their ideas are based on ignorance and fear.

I invite you to read a little more, perhaps a lot more, about this.

by xentity

Chaos theory was postulated by a metereologists named Lorenze in 1962 and No one wanted to listen to him. The natural sciences began using chaos theory widespread in the 80's to model disease patterns and bird migration routes. I worked in Aerospace and it was being used to model fluid dynamics in the late 70's with advanced engineering efforts. Business did not come onboard until the 90's.

The point I am making with chaos theory is that the universe is not random chance. It is ordered. If ordered then the fundamental premises of evolution regarding natural processes fail.

by tony hopkinson

The universe is not random chance, if you remember this branch started out because of your contention that evolution claims to be random.

Until chaos became a discipline a lot of natural processes were treated as random, because there was no mathematical underpinning to any other contention.

So the updated theory of evolution now claims to be chaotic, if they claimed random, they'd look like wallies wouldn't they?

The uncertainty principle killed off determinism, and chaos killed off random.

Those two theories are extinct, the theories have evolved. :D

by xentity

Tony, when it gets down to it we agree on more things than not.

The underlying scientific rigor has matured not evolution theory. I find too many inconsistencies in Evolution theory too hold any validity at this time.

I find much stronger evidence on a digital universe.

by xentity

I regret that you feel you have to argue. My intentions are no to be combative. Unfortunately, our understandings are so far apart that it is difficult to avoid. I honestly desire to present my case as much as you desire to present you case. We need common ground in order to build from. That is not occurring.

The science criteria is not my own. It is chaos theory and generally accepted scientific practice. The notion of randomness permits room to fantasize about evolution and other things. Remarking that something is fact and that everyone believes something does not make it a truth. People have a habit of talking themselves into things. The internet has accentuated this social phenomenon.

Evolution is not empirical. I simply went to ground and sought to build the discussion upward. The appearance, to you, was your belief was being challenged.

Evolution is not a threat to my faith. It is quite the opposite. Christianity is more of a threat to evolution whose underpinning is to denied origin. I have choosen to be Christian not out of pure emotional reasons or some need to believe in a Deity. I came to Christianity because I saw a much grander picture, everything I discover, and everything I know fit into this grand harmonious model the Bible puts forth. It has beauty in it.

Other faiths and sciences do not come together. They all fall short. They leave too many questions and not enough answers.

Thank you for you time.

by xentity

Tony, I realize that the meso-physical and the plankian realms are drastically different orders of magnitude. I also know that some of the natural is a probabalistic outcome.

The point being I was trying to indicate was the use of information and information processing in the natural.

by tony hopkinson

a conscious imposition of order through patterns. It's a function for our existence, so any arguments attempting to divorce it from the source are simply anthropomorphic.

Man created god in his own image.

by xentity

Tony, one could be on the inside looking out or the outside looking in. That is to remark one could see the world from inside the world or one could look at the world from a distant point beyond the world. Based on your position, one has a very different worldview.

You think of god and I think of God.

by tony hopkinson

congruence in our thinking.

Evolution does have some holes, but it explains a great deal, it come out with useful predictions and there is a large though at times patchy body of empirical evidence that doesn't contradict it.

Digital universe
Chaos theory, relativity, quantum mechanics all demonstrably correct in terms of their predictive power, leaves it dead in the water.

No different to that nonsense that we are god's neurons.

by tony hopkinson

Mines right for me, your's is right for you.

Our belief system's guide us, constrain us from some actions, cause others. Whether what we believe in is valid is always debatable, the reality of our belief is incontravertible though, as long as we practice what we preach.

by xentity

I am glad you found a view that agrees with what you think. I am not confident on how those thoughts came to be in your mind but perhaps there are more out there that corroborate your views.

In my case, the view was a discovery that has drawn me in and transformed my thoughts.

by absolutely

[i]Perhaps Pink Floyd was more honest than not with their song "Another Brick In The Wall"[/i]

by absolutely

[i]Some of the scientific failure of this Neo-Darwinist Sect include:

1. The natural occurrence of randomness, which Neo-Darwinism relies upon, does not exist in this natural universe. Scientists and mathematicians unilaterally agree that the universe is a perfectly ordered - indeterminant system which precludes any notion of randomness. Natural randomness cannot be mathematically modelled as the universe is perfectly ordered and randomness is counter to perfect order. So the root premise of Darwinism that biological life is the outcome of chance, random events cannot possibly exist. The Theory fails on its most basic premise.[/i]

I note that you haven't [i]quoted[/i] any members of your alleged "Neo-Darwinist Sect" in your allegation that "Neo-Darwinism relies upon" the "natural occurrence of randomness".

I reject your first assertion and will not reply to your next one until after you successfully defend the first.

by xentity

Evolution THEORY states that

1. RANDOM copying errors in genetic material (mutations), migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes during sexual reproduction (genetic recombination) create variation in organisms.

2. Genetic drift and natural selection act on this variation by increasing or decreasing the frequency of traits: genetic drift does so RANDOMLY, while natural selection does so based on whether a trait is beneficial, or conducive to reproduction.

3. Genetic variation arises due to RANDOM mutations that occur at a certain rate in the genomes of all organisms.

The notion of evolution is closely coupled with the thought that life emerged from a RANDOM natural event that caused life to naturally occur setting in motion the alleged phenomenon of evolution.

Anyone who espouses modern evolution theory is a Neo-Darwinist. They beome radicalized when they obnoxiously and even forcefully impose their off base philosophy upon other against their inner voice.

Randomness is simply an imaginary human convention and has no place in the science or mathematics of a natural universe. The natural is considered by every credible scientist as being perfectly ordered but indeterminant. This is Chaos Theory.

Randomness is sci-fi. Thus, the most fundamental premises of evolution are undermined at the outset.

I am afraid, my friend, I will not engage you unless you can adequately defend evolution using credible scientific rigor.

by deepsand

their ... " beliefs on others, just as you have persistently here done.

Hypocrite!

As for "randomness," you continue to either fail to understand the concept, or you deliberately misrepresent it so as to serve your means.

by absolutely

[i]1. RANDOM copying errors in genetic material (mutations), migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes during sexual reproduction (genetic recombination) create variation in organisms.[/i]

Strike the word "RANDOM" from the definition, then. What remains, stands.

The word "random" was meant to connote [i]ignorance[/i] of the specific causes of these mutations, not an assertion of [i]knowledge[/i] as to their specific cause(s). Among known causes of genetic mutation are ultraviolet light, which causes melanoma in humans, and certain nuclear decay reactions, which lead to sterility and various types of cancer. Smoking tobacco causes mutations that lead to cancer. Finally, some mutations occur as organisms age, with specific causes still totatlly unknown. Yet, we observe that they do occur.

In the theory of evolution, there is a recognition by scientists of our [i]inability[/i] to account for every type of mutation, and when it will affect one gene.

[i]Randomness is simply an imaginary human convention and has no place in the science or mathematics of a natural universe. The natural is considered by every credible scientist as being perfectly ordered but indeterminant (sic).[/i]

Therefore, "every credible scientist" understands the word "RANDOM" to mean deterministic, but indeterminate.

You are clutching at straws, and what you had imagined to be a defenseless straw man is proving you wrong.

[i]I am afraid, my friend, I will not engage you unless you can adequately defend evolution using credible scientific rigor.[/i]

(1) You should be afraid.
(2) I am [i]not[/i] your friend.
(3) I do not seek nor value said engagement. Any lack of "credible scientific rigor" has been on your part, and if you choose to bow out, that action will be understood as a concession of defeat. The Court has already ruled.

[i]Anyone who espouses modern evolution theory is a Neo-Darwinist.[/i]

Argumentum ad hominem.

[i]They beome radicalized when they obnoxiously and even forcefully impose their off base philosophy upon other against their inner voice.[/i]

False: nobody is imposing anything on you. You are free to [i]not[/i] take biology classes in college. Science is not a philosophy. It is a method of understanding the [i]natural[/i] world. Your attempt to impose your supernatural beliefs, and [i]your[/i] "inner voice" is the only attempt to "forcefully impose" any philosophy in this discussion.

It is your side that has asserted the right to teach religion in public schools, not mine.

by xentity

The only way God proves himself is through personal revelation. Even if humans were to provide scientific evidence to someone outside the community of faith, they would never accept it.

by deepsand

Then why do you persist in trying to prove by other means?

Your actions here contradict your above words.

by absolutely

that animal's mother. You know you've argued yourself into a corner, don't you, you little identity crisis?

[i]The only way God proves himself is through personal revelation. Even if humans were to provide scientific evidence to someone outside the community of faith, they would never accept it.[/i]

Assuming the above premise to be true, the 'Intelligent Design' claims have all been a mere exercise in futility, recognized as such in advance, haven't they?

by xentity

Clearly, evolution is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Its is a specific fundamental set of beliefs generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Evolutionist are, by in large, those who reject God or atheistic in their mannerisms. Atheism is a doctrine, a religion in otherwords, and the God they worship is a NULL.

Evolution is not a science it is a sectarian philosophy that does not belong in schools.