Intelligent Design: An Insult to Gods Intelligence?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Wow, that's the most technical sounding "Free Energy Equation" SLoT arguement against abiogenesis I've ever read, but it's not the first. I'll spend some more time on this later, but for the moment,

SLoT... Please clarify.

I anxiously await your reply.



The most up to date extensions of the Miller Urey experiment include carbonyl sulfide in the reactions. Keep in mind that the MU experiment is essentially a closed system except for the introduction of electricity, and the reaction of alpha amino acids with carbonyl sulfide at room temperature amazingly yields up to 80% peptides. Keep in mind that this system is "closed" compared to the "open" system of a prebiotic planet-in-a-galaxy system. We might want to take this over to the Abiogenesis: Hypothetical Origins of Life - The Real Enemy of Creationism thread.

I couldn't care less where we have this discussion.

Okay... points kept in mind. Now how does that change ANYTHING that I've said. With respect to the "80% peptides" experiment: Have you read those papers - not the summaries and news articles, the actaul papers? Did you happen to pay any attention to the "Materials and Methods" section? If so, did you happen to consider whether or not the conditions - in particular the specific reagents selected, and the relative concentrations of each - were even realistic in their representation of the prebiotic world?


I... Know that...

Okay, then why did you post that quote from Orgel?



Orgel is one the foremost abiogenesis researchers in the world. It would be career-suicide for him to admit the problem is insurmountable. It’s like saying “The experiments will never work, but fund my grants for the next 5 years anyway.” It makes complete sense that he would say this.



Disregarding a possible agenda, do you disagree with the quote, then?

Zip


Depends on what you mean by 'disagree with the quote.'
I do disagree with his statement about people that doubt the plausibility of abiogenesis theories as being deluded. In fact, it often seems like more educated people are willing to discount abiogenesis theories, as opposed to people who just wish to align themselves with the scientific majority... which seems to be the case on ATS. I didn't doubt abiogenesis until I got my Ph.D.... maybe it was in grad school. I can't remember. But either way, it's not a position I came to for a lack of info.

I am sure what you are asking is do I personally beieve abiogenesis theories are plausible...

I remain extremely skeptical, but completely open to a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.




posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by Zipdot
Wow, that's the most technical sounding "Free Energy Equation" SLoT arguement against abiogenesis I've ever read, but it's not the first. I'll spend some more time on this later, but for the moment,

SLoT... Please clarify.


Second law of thermodynamics.


Originally posted by mattison0922
I couldn't care less where we have this discussion.


Well, you're still invited to drop by the other thread if you'd like.


Originally posted by mattison0922
Okay... points kept in mind. Now how does that change ANYTHING that I've said. With respect to the "80% peptides" experiment: Have you read those papers - not the summaries and news articles, the actaul papers? Did you happen to pay any attention to the "Materials and Methods" section? If so, did you happen to consider whether or not the conditions - in particular the specific reagents selected, and the relative concentrations of each - were even realistic in their representation of the prebiotic world?


Yes, I have read the Scripps report. I have considered the question of whether the conditions for the reactions accurately represent the prebiotic world, and this is, of course, a point of contention with critics of the experiments. It is not, however, a deal-breaker. We have much to learn about the ancient atmospheric and terrestrial conditions of our planet.


Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by Zipdot
I... Know that...

Okay, then why did you post that quote from Orgel?


I thought some people might enjoy reading it.


Originally posted by mattison0922
Orgel is one the foremost abiogenesis researchers in the world. It would be career-suicide for him to admit the problem is insurmountable. It’s like saying “The experiments will never work, but fund my grants for the next 5 years anyway.” It makes complete sense that he would say this.



Originally posted by Zipdot
Disregarding a possible agenda, do you disagree with the quote, then?



Originally posted by mattison0922
Depends on what you mean by 'disagree with the quote.'
I do disagree with his statement about people that doubt the plausibility of abiogenesis theories as being deluded. In fact, it often seems like more educated people are willing to discount abiogenesis theories, as opposed to people who just wish to align themselves with the scientific majority... which seems to be the case on ATS. I didn't doubt abiogenesis until I got my Ph.D.... maybe it was in grad school. I can't remember. But either way, it's not a position I came to for a lack of info.


There is no theory describing a process of abiogenesis. At this stage, abiogenetic investigation is limited to hypotheses.


Originally posted by mattison0922
I am sure what you are asking is do I personally beieve abiogenesis theories are plausible...

I remain extremely skeptical, but completely open to a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.


I was pushing for an agreement that we currently know very little about abiogenetic possibilities and to say that we know enough to discount them would be premature and erroneous.

Zip



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Second law of thermodynamics.

Duhhh




Well, you're still invited to drop by the other thread if you'd like.

Thanks for the invite. I'll watch the thread for activity.



Yes, I have read the Scripps report. I have considered the question of whether the conditions for the reactions accurately represent the prebiotic world, and this is, of course, a point of contention with critics of the experiments. It is not, however, a deal-breaker. We have much to learn about the ancient atmospheric and terrestrial conditions of our planet.

Actually, I was referring the published, peer-reviewed articles. But either way... I actually wasn't making a reducing vs. oxidizing atmosphere argument or anything like that. I was actually more making a point regarding the use of highly concentrated, stereochemically pure, alpha amino acids, and similar concerns. I don't wish to recreate the existing online debates about these topics.


There is no theory describing a process of abiogenesis. At this stage, abiogenetic investigation is limited to hypotheses.

Abiogenesis IS a theory. The particular hypotheses that make up the theory are far from agreed upon though.


I was pushing for an agreement that we currently know very little about abiogenetic possibilities and to say that we know enough to discount them would be premature and erroneous.

Well... I'll certainly agree with you sort of... abiogenesis theories currently leave a lot to be desired... though it's not because we've not explored a variety of possibilities. I am willing to discount the vast majority of abiogenesis studies I've read as being methodologically flawed. But, I don't think the research is a complete waste of time.



[edit on 17-11-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Actually, I was referring the published, peer-reviewed articles. But either way...


I was speaking about last year's article in the journal Science written by members of the Scripps Research Institute.


Originally posted by mattison0922
But, I don't I don't think the research is a complete waste of time.


...Nor is it complete.

Zip



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
I was speaking about last year's article in the journal Science written by members of the Scripps Research Institute.

My apologies.

Hey Zip, on what subject are you an expert?

Matt



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKobLCKob:

Yes and the answer in the early part of the explanation did take that into account It can be explained patiently (or less than patiently, after the 1000th iteration or so) that entropy only strictly increases in an isolated system; THAT THERRE ARE NO COMPLETLEY ISOLATED SYSTEMS IN NATURE , save maybe the universe as a whole;


Patriot:

"only strictly increases in an Isolated system? where did you get that, I can walk outside and tell you that thats false. leave a house for 40 years without takin care of it and come back and it will fall apart. People with genetics will tell you that every time a baby is born it has lost DNA from its parents. to say that entropy only increases in Isolated systems is an outright lie and is not science, any braniac can tell you that ..."



LCkob:

Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, you totally endorse this statment?

"that entropy only increases in Isolated systems is an outright lie and is not science"

If so, I would be very interested in the comprehensive data and evidence to reinforce your claim ... then I can compare it with the accumulated data, rationale and assessment provided to me by the scientific community which dispute your assertion.


Hmmmm ... this sounds very familar ....

When I was in my first or second year of college, a friend of mine who belonged to a fundamentalist Christian church in Sri Lanka said that he had heard of a convincing scientific proof against the theory of evolution. He said the proof centered on the concept of entropy. I had already heard of the term entropy at that time, but I definitely did not understand the concept, since I had not as yet studied thermodynamics in any detail.

Anyway, my friend told me that there was this law of physics that said that the total entropy of a system had to always increase. He also said that the entropy of a system was inversely related to the amount of the order and complexity in the system, so that the greater the order, the lower the entropy. Since I did not have any reason (or desire) to challenge my friend, I accepted those premises.

Then came the killer conclusion. Since it was manifestly clear that the theory of evolution implied increasing order (under the theory, biological systems were becoming more diversified, complex, and organized from their highly disordered primeval soup beginnings) this implied that the entropy of the Earth must be decreasing. This violated the law of increasing entropy. Hence evolution must be false.

It was a pretty good argument, I thought at that time. But in a year or two, as I learned more about entropy, that argument fell apart. The catch is that the law of increasing entropy (also known as the second law of thermodynamics) applies to closed, isolated systems only, i.e., systems that have no interaction with any other system. The only really isolated system we have is the entire universe and the law is believed to apply strictly to it.

Patriot

Ok, again, let me state, get out of your lab and go outside. but ok, lets say your right, and entropy only happens in isolated systems, but then you state that the entire universe is the only isolated system, which means that the law of entropy works within it, again disproving evolution. Congradulations, you just contradicted yourself. the earth is part of the universe, and as far as we can see the law of entropy applies to the whole universe-scientists will tell you the sun is losing heat, the moon is losing orbit, starts go supernova on a constant basis-wow amazing, how you can basically just go and contradict yourself in the same sentece. amazing what public schools teach today.


Lcob

For any other system, we have to make sure that it is isolated (at least to a good approximation) before we apply the law to it, and this is where my friend's argument breaks down. The Earth is definitely not a closed system. It continuously absorbs and radiates energy. It especially gains energy from the Sun and radiates energy into empty space and it is this exchange of energy that is the engine of biological growth.

Patriot

but the law of entropy still applies, things break down. its part of the closed system of the universe. and yes, new things come about, it gains energy, but it also loses energy, in fact the rat of loss is increasing yearly. so is everything on the planet. look at human genetics, every time a baby is born, it has lost DNA from both parents, it is inferior genetically to its parents. I mean seriously, stop believing what youve been told and step outside and just observe nature.


Lcob

So nothing can be inferred from the entropy of the Earth alone. You have to consider the entire system of the Sun, the Earth, and the rest of the universe, and you find that this leads to a net increase of the entire closed system. So the second law of thermodynamics is not violated.

Patriot

but it is, like stated earlier, the entire universe as well as the earth is breaking down. even evolutionary astronomers will tell you the sun is losing energy daily, that stars go supernova on a regular basis, the moon is losing orbit, i mean seriously, signs of decay are everywhere. but were discussing evolution and the law of entropy, well since the only place we can prove beyond a doubt that life existed is earth, and since the law of entropy applies to the earth, we see it everyday (otherwise we would have never discovered it) it does contradict because evolution demands new information being added to a creatures DNA, and like I have stated earlier, it doesnt. Creatures that are born are always inferior to their parents genetically, 100% of the time. no helpful mutations have ever been observed, and a mutation isnt even helpful to evolution because its either loss of information or the same information repeated, as in the snake that was born with 2 heads, no new information added, just information repeated, which would kill the animal in the wild.


blog.case.edu...

[edit on 6-12-2005 by the_patriot2004]

mod edit to fix quotes

[edit on 7-12-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Cancer is a result of sin. Mankind rebelled against God and sin entered the world. Sin affects all of creation in many aspects. We are experiencing a world that has rejected God. That is why all the suffering and evil. Thank God, He does intervene or it would be worse than what it is now.




are you saying that only sinners get cancer? or are you saying that god is giving random people cancer for the hell of it?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by dbrandt
Cancer is a result of sin. Mankind rebelled against God and sin entered the world. Sin affects all of creation in many aspects. We are experiencing a world that has rejected God. That is why all the suffering and evil. Thank God, He does intervene or it would be worse than what it is now.




are you saying that only sinners get cancer? or are you saying that god is giving random people cancer for the hell of it?


No hes not, in one sense. cancer is a result of mans sin but is not caused by sin. By the Biblical model, the earth was created perfect, no disease, no death, no pain. but then man decided to disobey God, and sin, thus death entered the world. but in the other sense what he has said is true, since according to Romans 3:23 for we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. so everyone who gets cancer is a sinner by definition, but that cancer is not necessarily punishment for sin, that is not for us to know thats between that person and God. yes bad things happen to good people, it is a fallen world. Thankfully the Lord gave us a way out, and for christians theres life beyond. Romans 6:23 states that the wages of sin is Death (spiritual) but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord. and the Apostle Paul later states that to live is Christ and to die is gain. how do you obtain the gift? The Apostle Paul states in Romans 10:9 Confess your sins and thou shalt be saved. Christians do not have to fear death, whether by cancer, persecution, or anything because we have a greater reward in heaven.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
LCKob:

Yes and the answer in the early part of the explanation did take that into account It can be explained patiently (or less than patiently, after the 1000th iteration or so) that entropy only strictly increases in an isolated system; THAT THERRE ARE NO COMPLETLEY ISOLATED SYSTEMS IN NATURE , save maybe the universe as a whole;


Patriot:

"only strictly increases in an Isolated system? where did you get that, I can walk outside and tell you that thats false. leave a house for 40 years without takin care of it and come back and it will fall apart. People with genetics will tell you that every time a baby is born it has lost DNA from its parents. to say that entropy only increases in Isolated systems is an outright lie and is not science, any braniac can tell you that ..."


LCkob:

Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, you totally endorse this statment?

"that entropy only increases in Isolated systems is an outright lie and is not science"

If so, I would be very interested in the comprehensive data and evidence to reinforce your claim ... then I can compare it with the accumulated data, rationale and assessment provided to me by the scientific community which dispute your assertion.


Patriot:

Ok, again, let me state, get out of your lab and go outside. but ok, lets say your right, and entropy only happens in isolated systems, but then you state that the entire universe is the only isolated system, which means that the law of entropy works within it, again disproving evolution. Congradulations, you just contradicted yourself. the earth is part of the universe, and as far as we can see the law of entropy applies to the whole universe-scientists will tell you the sun is losing heat, the moon is losing orbit, starts go supernova on a constant basis-wow amazing, how you can basically just go and contradict yourself in the same sentece. amazing what public schools teach today.

LcKob

For any other system, we have to make sure that it is isolated (at least to a good approximation) before we apply the law to it, and this is where my friend's argument breaks down. The Earth is definitely not a closed system. It continuously absorbs and radiates energy. It especially gains energy from the Sun and radiates energy into empty space and it is this exchange of energy that is the engine of biological growth.

Patriot:

but the law of entropy still applies, things break down. its part of the closed system of the universe. and yes, new things come about, it gains energy, but it also loses energy, in fact the rat of loss is increasing yearly. so is everything on the planet. look at human genetics, every time a baby is born, it has lost DNA from both parents, it is inferior genetically to its parents. I mean seriously, stop believing what youve been told and step outside and just observe nature.

Lckob:

Yes on the universal scale, but domains of growth are part of this equation as well .. Earth being the example.

... but ... seeing as to how we are delving into methodological minutia ... I would now like to ask you this (in order to gain the original intent or point of contention between our views

... you claim that ID is a science yes?

I on the other hand say otherwise ... have you by any chance read the legal transcripts in regards to the push for ID in schools as championed by John West? If not, here are some reference sources (yes, I know you loath links, but it is useful and efficient)

www.talkreason.org...

(there are a series of articles revolving around the recent ruling, look at them if you are so inclined ... but in any case, it is there as a reinforced precedent as to why ID fails as a science and why it is inappropriate as a sanctioned subset of Scientific Methodology.

It appears that your views of "Scientific ID" are at odds with even the expert witnesses and proponents for ID.

This court ruling being the (present ratified case, - reinforced from the precedent of Kitzmiller)


... and apologies for not replying sooner ... a death in the family and a number of crisis situations at work has been preoccupying my mind as of late ... and I did not see a reply when I did my periodic quick scans ...

[edit on 1-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
LCKob:

Yes and the answer in the early part of the explanation did take that into account It can be explained patiently (or less than patiently, after the 1000th iteration or so) that entropy only strictly increases in an isolated system; THAT THERRE ARE NO COMPLETLEY ISOLATED SYSTEMS IN NATURE , save maybe the universe as a whole;


Patriot:

"only strictly increases in an Isolated system? where did you get that, I can walk outside and tell you that thats false. leave a house for 40 years without takin care of it and come back and it will fall apart. People with genetics will tell you that every time a baby is born it has lost DNA from its parents. to say that entropy only increases in Isolated systems is an outright lie and is not science, any braniac can tell you that ..."


LCkob:

Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, you totally endorse this statment?

"that entropy only increases in Isolated systems is an outright lie and is not science"

If so, I would be very interested in the comprehensive data and evidence to reinforce your claim ... then I can compare it with the accumulated data, rationale and assessment provided to me by the scientific community which dispute your assertion.


Patriot:

Ok, again, let me state, get out of your lab and go outside. but ok, lets say your right, and entropy only happens in isolated systems, but then you state that the entire universe is the only isolated system, which means that the law of entropy works within it, again disproving evolution. Congradulations, you just contradicted yourself. the earth is part of the universe, and as far as we can see the law of entropy applies to the whole universe-scientists will tell you the sun is losing heat, the moon is losing orbit, starts go supernova on a constant basis-wow amazing, how you can basically just go and contradict yourself in the same sentece. amazing what public schools teach today.

LcKob

For any other system, we have to make sure that it is isolated (at least to a good approximation) before we apply the law to it, and this is where my friend's argument breaks down. The Earth is definitely not a closed system. It continuously absorbs and radiates energy. It especially gains energy from the Sun and radiates energy into empty space and it is this exchange of energy that is the engine of biological growth.

Patriot:

but the law of entropy still applies, things break down. its part of the closed system of the universe. and yes, new things come about, it gains energy, but it also loses energy, in fact the rat of loss is increasing yearly. so is everything on the planet. look at human genetics, every time a baby is born, it has lost DNA from both parents, it is inferior genetically to its parents. I mean seriously, stop believing what youve been told and step outside and just observe nature.

Lckob:

Yes on the universal scale, but domains of growth are part of this equation as well .. Earth being the example.


www.talkreason.org...


[edit on 1-1-2006 by LCKob]


yes you have explained in great detail your theory on entropy, what you claim to be true but its not you explained a whole lot of contradicting theory. if the law of entropy only works in isolated systems and there is no such thing as an isolated system save the universe, that leaves only two answers, A: since the entire universe is a isolated system then the law of entropy applies to everything in it, which provides evidence for my theory of intelligent design, and makes your statement contradictory, or B: there is no real law of entropy, which is unlikly, since the law of entropy does exist. the law of entropy was made by a scientist (do I really need to state his name) who observed seeing it in nature, not the universe, he saw it and observed it in nature, and he didnt observe any Isolated system crap he saw something that was everywhere and made a law about it, its universal, and there are no exceptions, hence why its called a law. go outside, everythings breaking down. plants die, animals die, DNA loses information every generation from all animals. just look at the dog breeds, you know one aspect of evolution says that animals evolved from mutations from one generation to the next and lets look at dog DNA. every time someone makes a new breed of dog, say mixes a German Shepherd with a Husky, the new dog is inferior to the parent dogs genetically? it has lost information. law of entropy at work. for evolution to be true, the dog would have to of gained genetic information. this is also true of Darwins finches; he saw several finches with different beaks and said that they were proof of evolution, when it wasn't, it was variation within a species. they were all finches, just some had developed differently shaped beaks using DNA that was already there, and in fact lost DNA. but lets look what you have when you breed a finch with a long beak with one with a short beak.You start with 2 finches, they have a baby finch, with either a long or short beak, and it will breed a finch. came from a finch, is a finch will always be a finch. same with the dogs, they start out a dog, are a dog, and always will be a dog. that is testable, observable, and repeatable.

Im sorry about your loss in your family, and I would love to continue this debate but with my school schedule and everything else I do not have time to continue this debate on this site, however, I am running a forums site of my own now (which is going to take a lot of my online time away, which is why i dont have time to come here much anymore) and if you would like to go there I am more then happy to continue this debate there. It is a site run by christians yes, but it is open to everyone, so feel free to go and post to your hearts content. the link to the site is: s15.invisionfree.com...
so feel free to come and post there, or enjoy some of the boards other features.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
LCKob:

So, once again, I pose this question to you ...

... you claim that ID is a science yes?

I on the other hand say otherwise ... have you by any chance read the legal transcripts in regards to the push for ID in schools as championed by John West? If not, here are some reference sources (yes, I know you loath links, but it is useful and efficient)

www.talkreason.org...

(there are a series of articles revolving around the recent ruling, look at them if you are so inclined ... but in any case, it is there as a reinforced precedent as to why ID fails as a science and why it is inappropriate as a sanctioned subset of Scientific Methodology.

It appears that your views of "Scientific ID" are at odds with even the expert witnesses and proponents for ID.

This court ruling being the (present ratified case, - reinforced from the precedent of Kitzmiller)

... and have repeatedly asked for the substantive basis for your agruments in the form of research data and sources ... none of which have materialized ... which leads me to conclude more and more that your argumetents are specious in quality and are designed to appeal to the "apparant nature" of common sense observation.



So to sum up we have:

1. the lack of address to the fundemental charge that ID is not a Science.

2. the lack of supporting independent data and materials (links, sources etc.) despite requests.

3. the apparant withdrawal from ATS? ... to form another site ... which is not a bad thing in itself ... aside from the fact that (self admittingly) it is made by you and run by individuals who have a christian bias ... (IMO any "bias" is potentially debillitating when seeking truth as opposed to confirmation.

Why not a neutral stance ... as opposed to the rationalization of trying to support a conclusion?


LCKob

[edit on 13-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher


Antibiotic-resistant bacteria illustrate the main concepts of evolution, selection and mutation, this is only one example of the many facts that hold the biological sciences and evolution.


I dont know how many places I have seen this since ive been on this site. but it does not prove a damn thing about evolution.
bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is from a loss of the locking capability to the drug. its because they lost the ability. no information was added.
and if your daughter does not know that, than she obviously didnt learn everything in biology.



Evolution as a biological sciences has been proven over and over again, so calling it a fantasy is not very accurate.


maybe not very accurate, but it still is accurate. have you ever seen any animal produce or even come from a totally different kind of animal?
let me help you out a little bit, have you ever seen a horse give birth to something other than some sort of variety of horse? if you have, im sorry you didnt get it on film.
EC


Boy, you gotta love the reasoning here.

So, a bacterium that no longer responds by dying in the presence of a drug did not evolve, but the drug did?
Let me get this straight...take HIV. It's known that AZT is very effective against HIV in patients for a while, but it later cannot control the virus. By Cruncher's logic, the virus didn't evolve, but the AZT itself changed to where it can't affect the virus.



By this logic, if you take the SAME AZT that won't work on a resistant viral strain and use it on a non-resistant viral strain, the non-resistant strain will be unaffected because the AZT can't do its job.



Oh, man, you're killing me. Let's all get together and tell researchers to stop making flu vaccines every year because the virus doesn't evolve.
(The thimerosal, on the other hand, is a different story...)

And, for your second point, birds came from dinosaurs. There, happy. There are fossils of dinosaurs with feathers. There you go.

Dbrandt says that a bacteria that becomes resistant is the same as a resistant bacterium; in other words, no evolution. By this logic, all species of birds are really one species, all snakes are 1 snake, all insects are 1 insect, and all members of the genus Homo are 1 human (maybe Australopithecus too?
). It's funny that whales and snakes used to have legs, though. I guess if legged species of the two still existed, they would not be classified as whales or snakes, even though their ancestors are cleary whales and snakes?




posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Truthseeker, what evolution crusher is trying to tell you is correct, the bacteria doesnt evolve. It does change however. Adaptation, or variation within a species is a proven scientific fact. it does not gain new information however, like evolution requires. what happens is that the information in the bacteria is already there, though it may be dormant or just in a few strains of it, not enough to be noticed by the scientific community. when the new vaccine hits, it kills off all the bacteria that does not have this traight, or at at least not enough of it to fight it off. so what happens next is one of two things, the surviving bacteria are the ones with either the ability to fight the vaccine, which begin to reproduce and replace the earlier one, or the former dormant traight becomes active. but it is still the same bacteria. when a virus or other bacteria mutates, often times it is also weaker then its parent virus/bacteria, not because it gained information but it lost information. and for your statement that birds came from dinosaurs is ridiculous-there is no proof. yes there have been found what evolutionists call "Dinosaurs" with feathers, but upon closer inspection you find that they are really either birds or dinosaurs, not a cross. archaeopteryx for instance, upon closer inspection, is found to be a bird. it was originally thought to be a dinosaur because of its sharp teeth, but that is not proof of being half dinosaur because there are birds today that have teeth. what you have is a species of bird that went extinct, not a half dinosaur half bird. and to address the whales and snakes have legs issue, first off there is no proof that whales had legs, ever. no one has found a whale with legs nor seen one, and the bones that they are assuming used to be hip bones, well thats it-an assumption. science still doesnt know everything and those bones may do something completly different and useful to the animal today. as for the snake, again same thing no proof, though if you were to dive into Biblical theory they did used to have legs, before the fall of man. when the serpent tricked eve, God cursed the serpent to crawl upon his belly. otherwise, God took the serpents (snakes) legs away, and possibly left the hip bones. so in the case of snakes, not proof of evolution and may indeed be another evidence towards intelligent design.

lckob,
Intelligent design is just as much a science as evolution if not more of one, whether the court rules it or not otherwise we would not be debating this matter otherwise. let me re-iterate a earlier point, one cannot prove beyond a doubt creation or evolution, at least by the scientific method because we wern't there, we didn't see it happen, and we don't know anyone who was, except for God, but if you don't believe in God that leaves the scientific method, which basically means you cant 100% prove what happenned. there is no way for scientists to look at a rock today and know what happenned 3 million years ago if indeed the earth is that old. sure scientists can speculate and make educated guesses, or in some cases just guesses, but there is no proof. now if you look at the Bible, it is the oldest manuscript to have an account about the beginnings of the earth, and if one were to accept divine authorship then we know, if not then we are left debating what we see in nature today, which is what I have been trying to debate. Now, like I said earlier I am right nowa full time college student, and I have precious little time anymore to devote to 2 to 3 forums sites, and I probably will not be able to post much here anymore, though I will be active at another site that I run, s15.invisionfree.com...
and if you would like to continue this debate there I would be more then glad to. everyone is welcome, Christ may be in the domain name, because I am a christian, but everyone from any religion is welcome there, free account same priviliges as everyone else, and just as welcome. in fact, if you have a question or a doubt about christianity, beginnings of the earth, I dare you to go there.

[edit on 13-1-2006 by the_patriot2004]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_patriot2004

lckob,

I do not know a whole lot about this "ID" you talk about, and do not want to make a reply on a matter I am not totally knowledgeable on, though I will research it and formulate a reply at a later date in time.



ID = Intelligent Design
SM = Scientific Methodology

... you claim that Intelligent Design is a science yes?

I on the other hand say otherwise ... have you by any chance read the legal transcripts in regards to the push for Intelligent Design in schools as championed by John West? If not, here are some reference sources (yes, I know you loath links, but it is useful and efficient)

Please read the criteria for the definition of science as it is applied and how Intelligent Design does not fit the model which is admitted quite candidly by the propoonents for ID in court ... please read transcripts.


... or to save some time, here is an excerpt from:

"How West got Lost" By Pim van Meurs

found on: www.talkreason.org...




Judge Jones wrote:

Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr. vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005).

It's hard to argue with defense witnesses now is it... But perhaps West considers their testimony to be a misrepresentation?

But the Judge did not stop with the defense witnesses, he also looked at public statements made by ID proponents

Johnson: Turning from defense expert witnesses to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to
include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. (11:8-15 (Forrest); P-429).

Dembski: Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by
methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32-34, Sept. 28, 2005).

The Judge also observes that

Judge Jones wrote:

Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID.




hahah ... you "dare" me to visit your site? How quaint. Now, I am not adverse to seeking knowledge, and with that I may visit your site ... but in likewise fashion, visit this one with regularity "if you dare". Keep in mind, this site hosts the full gamut of views, and its "bias" is not Christian ... I submit to you, it is a more valid neutral ground than your site.

LCKob



[edit on 13-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
we can see a similar change from lizards to snakes in skinks. Thus we have skinks with legs, skinks with a stub/half-leg, skinks with no legs.

[edit on 13-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 13-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 14-1-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   
you know my idea of a debate is between two intelligent people seeking to defend their theory and learn from it. which also would mean both members having an equal amount of respect for the other persons theory-not belief, respect, I do not see that with you, you are biased with your theory completly. you may submit that this is a valid nuetral ground then my site, but you do not know that, since you have not been on my site. people automatically assume that once "Christ" is brought into the equation theres already a bias for it, but yet to say that proves that theres a bias against in your mind. everyone is biased, me, you, and my site is no more biased or neutral then this site. and yes i realize that ID is intelligent design, i mistook it for another term at first, my apologies, and yes it is a scientific theory as much as evolution. but as for this site, I do not have time right now to keep up with several sites-I will come to this one as time permits, but I see no tremondous reason to devote the primary amount of time in a site that is so biased against ID that the members will not only outright insult people who believe it, and no im not accusing you lckob, I am speaking of others, and who will refuse to look my evidence with as much respect and concern that I look at theirs, I read your articles, your websites, and weighed them, considered them, and decided whether they were true or not, yet what I see here is very few people who argue for evolution are willing to do that, this is not a healthy debate. I propose to you that my website is just as neutral as this, just because it is run by a christian doesn't mean that your going to be mistreated for any reason, the argument that it would would be the same as saying this site is anti-christian and anti-Intelligent design because it isnt run by christians, both false statements, both sites can provide the same debate grounds, its just im choosing to spend the majority of the time at the site I am running. if you are willing to continue this debate go there, if you really think that you have something and that your theory is better then mine then, your more then welcome, bring your friends. If not, well thats up to you, one thing ive learned is wise time manegement and trying to juggle two to 3 different debates, especially if one of them is not necessarily a healthy one, run my own site on top of homework and a full time college schedule is difficult to do, as I am sure you are well aware. I hope to see you there, if not perhaps we might meet again at a later date, and I hope the Lord blesses you in your life. and like i said i will visit this site as time permits, but it may be even weeks in between.





[edit on 14-1-2006 by the_patriot2004]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
the_patriot2004:

"you know my idea of a debate is between two intelligent people seeking to defend their theory and learn from it. which also would mean both members having an equal amount of respect for the other persons theory-not belief, respect, I do not see that with you, you are biased with your theory completly."



LCKob:

Please show me where I have not by method shown the courtesy of taking your view seriously. Time and time again, I provided references, examples and links to the basis of my stance. Likewise time and again I have asked for such from you ... in particular for the research data that you never produced. You assert that ID is a science, and yet hamper my appraisal of it with no presented data or credible references to such ... thus I would say that it is rather ironic that I take you seriously by the application of SM, and that you (who assert that ID is a science) seem not able to follow the basic process.



the_patriot2004:

"you may submit that this is a valid nuetral ground then my site, but you do not know that, since you have not been on my site. people automatically assume that once "Christ" is brought into the equation theres already a bias for it, but yet to say that proves that theres a bias against in your mind. everyone is biased, me, you, and my site is no more biased or neutral then this site."



LCKob:

Now based on your own words ...

"people automatically assume that once "Christ" is brought into the equation theres already a bias for it" < the_patriot2004 >


... You have just confirmed "bringing Christ into your equation" if so then you are intrinsically and fundementally biased . Period.

Keep in mind, I am an Agnostic... with a leaning for SM ... please look up the definition (I have posted it up enough lately). Which means that YOU have a very definite (and unprovable) bias, I by definition and practice do not ...

what I have though is a total disagreement with your assertion that ID is a Science ... which I have supported and you have not ... except perhaps by your invitation to (your self admitted "biased" site).

Yes, I submit that ATS is valid neutral ground due to the wide range of supported views (it is not primarily a Christian run site), while yours is admittedly so ... my assessment has to do with the principle of site context as the basis for intrinsic seeking of truth.

The logic goes like this... "To Seek Truth", you can have no preconcieved ideas ... The desire to confirm a particular conclusion is rationalization. So by this model, I would see a "open ended" site with the tagline "Deny Ignorance" as more neutral by context potential than such a site that is openly admitted to be run by a strong ID proponent ... on a domain named "Christ" and with an index referring to the "Cowboys of God"... so I suppose an inside joke would be that anyone accessing your site is automatically entering into the "Domain of Christ" haha.

... now tell me, which site tenet and underlying principle seems more neutral to you? (and I open this up to anyone reading or following this thread)



the_patriot2004:

"and yes i realize that ID is intelligent design, i mistook it for another term at first, my apologies, and yes it is a scientific theory as much as evolution."



LCKob:

Once again, I supply valid documented evidence in the form of the recent court ruling as a concrete case of why ID is not a science by verifiable and comprehensive examination ... up to and including testimony from EXPERTS FOR ID WHO IN THERE OWN WORDS CANDIDLY ADMIT TO THE COURT THE REASON WHY ID CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A SCIENCE. (see previous post quote for reference to referenced except of witness testimony and judge rationale). ... and you continue to blithely assert that ID is a science without a blink to evidence of any sort ... if your continued response style is any indicator of your "science" then I rest my case.


the_patriot:

"I propose to you that my website is just as neutral as this, just because it is run by a christian doesn't mean that your going to be mistreated for any reason, the argument that it would would be the same as saying this site is anti-christian and anti-Intelligent design because it isnt run by christians, both false statements, both sites can provide the same debate grounds, its just im choosing to spend the majority of the time at the site I am running. if you are willing to continue this debate go there, if you really think that you have something and that your theory is better then mine then, your more then welcome, bring your friends. If not, well thats up to you, one thing ive learned is wise time manegement and trying to juggle two to 3 different debates, especially if one of them is not necessarily a healthy one, run my own site on top of homework and a full time college schedule is difficult to do, as I am sure you are well aware. I hope to see you there, if not perhaps we might meet again at a later date, and I hope the Lord blesses you in your life. and like i said i will visit this site as time permits, but it may be even weeks in between.
"



LCKob:

Well yes, we can agree on that at least, wise time management ... for like you I have to juggle activities based upon the needs and requirements of work and personal responsibilities in the form of familial obligations. So we seem to have a similar dilemna ... in that it is becoming problematic to ... add another ball to the 50 or so we are presently juggling ... and likewise, I do not relish the notion of "reinventing the wheel" for context and or linkages to past threads, quotes or personal references.


... so let me know when you can match the view diversity, active member count and "site robustness" of one such as ATS as per their site profile quote below:




AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular destination for the discussion of conspiracy theories and "alternative topics". We have nearly 2 million posts, and over 1 million unique pages of content. We feature a unique free member podcast service with 18,000 feed subscribers to over 1,100 podcasts on 10 topical feeds from 92 podcasting members. And coming this spring, AboveTopSecret.com Weekly, a prime-time cable network television series.




Until then ... I will continue to shop at the local "Super Mall" as opposed to a local "Mom & Pops". Now, I have nothing against "small" ... but I do value my time and have always gone for "bang for the buck" in which case, Size, Scope, Versatility, Diversity and Availability become key criteria elements for my MO in all my forms of "shopping".

LCKob




[edit on 14-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
the_patriot2004:

"you know my idea of a debate is between two intelligent people seeking to defend their theory and learn from it. which also would mean both members having an equal amount of respect for the other persons theory-not belief, respect, I do not see that with you, you are biased with your theory completly."



LCKob:

Please show me where I have not by method shown the courtesy of taking your view seriously. Time and time again, I provided references, examples and links to the basis of my stance. Likewise time and again I have asked for such from you ... in particular for the research data that you never produced. You assert that ID is a science, and yet hamper my appraisal of it with no presented data or credible references to such ... thus I would say that it is rather ironic that I take you seriously by the application of SM, and that you (who assert that ID is a science) seem not able to follow the basic process.

If you notice in my post i did not accuse you of such behavior, in fact i said I wasnt-I was talking of others, you have been one of the most sensible people here, some of the others here, even ones arguing for ID have shown childishness and rudeness and make a bad name for whatever theory they present. which is partly why I am not so sure I want to spend a large amount of my time here if everyone was as sensible as you I would have no issues with spending a lot of time here.

I do, I just dont take my sources from the internet or other sites, I take mine from nature. The courts have been known to be wrong, and I have made this statement several times, to be 100% technical, if you look at it, neither Evolution or ID is actual science, since neither one follow the scientific method, none of us saw an animal evolving nor an supreme being make the world, we have not seen an example of evolution or of a supreme being creating something. those are just two parts of the scientific process, and neither Evolution or Intelligent Design follow those two rules, and to be totally technical about terms neither are theories either but Hypothesis. if you want sources as to the definition of these terms www.dictionary.com will tell you the definition, and you can take those definitions and apply them to your theory and you will see what I am stating is true, what we have are two opposing hypothesis based on our interpretations of the evidence. Now I have read all your court cases and all your sources, now show me the respect I showed you-look beyond the courts and the "experts" and look at nature itself for yourself, you may or may not be surprised at what you see.




LCKob:

Well yes, we can agree on that at least, wise time management ... for like you I have to juggle activities based upon the needs and requirements of work and personal responsibilities in the form of familial obligations. So we seem to have a similar dilemna ... in that it is becoming problematic to ... add another ball to the 50 or so we are presently juggling ... and likewise, I do not relish the notion of "reinventing the wheel" for context and or linkages to past threads, quotes or personal references.


... so let me know when you can match the view diversity, active member count and "site robustness" of one such as ATS as per their site profile quote below:




AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular destination for the discussion of conspiracy theories and "alternative topics". We have nearly 2 million posts, and over 1 million unique pages of content. We feature a unique free member podcast service with 18,000 feed subscribers to over 1,100 podcasts on 10 topical feeds from 92 podcasting members. And coming this spring, AboveTopSecret.com Weekly, a prime-time cable network television series.




Until then ... I will continue to shop at the local "Super Mall" as opposed to a local "Mom & Pops". Now, I have nothing against "small" ... but I do value my time and have always gone for "bang for the buck" in which case, Size, Scope, Versatility, Diversity and Availability become key criteria elements for my MO in all my forms of "shopping".

LCKob




[edit on 14-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
the_patriot2004:

"If you notice in my post i did not accuse you of such behavior, in fact i said I wasnt-I was talking of others, you have been one of the most sensible people here, some of the others here, even ones arguing for ID have shown childishness and rudeness and make a bad name for whatever theory they present. which is partly why I am not so sure I want to spend a large amount of my time here if everyone was as sensible as you I would have no issues with spending a lot of time here.

I do, I just dont take my sources from the internet or other sites, I take mine from nature.

LCKob:

Well you see, thats part of the rub, you say that your sources are "from nature" ... okay, I have no problem with that ... but observation is just the first step in a methodology ... to be followed by the formation of an observational assertion as in a hypothesis or theory ... which in turn requires a rigorous set of testing and the acumulation of data to support any such claims ... then the cycle repeats on a continual basis to refine working models in regards to consistent interactive integration into a larger schema ...

So, you make an assertion, you pose a hypothesis .... now where is the data, testing and peer review for such material?????


the_patriot2004

"The courts have been known to be wrong,"

LCKob:

Please read carefully... the ID proponents themselves made no claims for science... quite the opposite in fact ... thus I don't think "changing" the nature of science to include the supernatural as a given is such a keen idea ... and obviously neither does the judge ...

... and so once again, I am left with no data, no body of research, no peer endorsed publication detailing a methodical process of testing and refinement

...all I get from you is assertions.

the_patriot2004:

... if you look at it, neither Evolution or ID is actual science, since neither one follow the scientific method, none of us saw an animal evolving nor an supreme being make the world,

LCkob:

Specious argument ... in that yes, no one was around to see the beginning of things ... true, but does that mean that one has free license to "fill in the blanks" and call it science ... no. and the court and your proponents agree.

As for evolution ... it is not complete, not is it perfect, but it has accumulated a large body of evidence (observed and otherwise), research,critically assessed peer reviewed material and it has shown the inate SM capacity to "evolve" with new data ... and it in principle "does not make stuff up" or add in elements that have no basis in fact, data, or concrete measurable evidence of some sort. So yes, no one "observed" the beginnings ... and as such ID proponents say "life is complex god must have done it" ... Evolution? ... well from what has been found ... we (the scientific community) have formulated a basic working model for life on earth ... actually there are subsets to this and controversy over various points, but ... due to the research, data and collected evidence we have the model of "Evolution" ... as for the very beginnings of life ... there is much debate and the research is ongoing ... but no difinitive answer as yet.

ID= God!

SM=?? hmmm I would like to find out ...

The thing is that I am not opposed to the POSSIBILITY of a creator... but in the case of ID ... Proponents for ID have a built in desire to confirm a Diety instead of gathering information and data to determine if the evidence supports such a creator.

Hmmmmm ... to recap:

ID:

1. Observation
2. Assertion/theory
3. ........ ?????

Evolution by way of SM:

1. Observation
2. Assertion/theory
3. Very large body of research in multiple overlapping fields with documented method aquired data and ongoing evaluation of findings ... validate findings with global scientific community by way of publication/info distribution including raw data.
4. Refinement of working predictor models with ever increasing accuracy and greater global integration into larger causal schema.
5. working hypotheis/theory
6. Repeat steps 1-5


... where are these things for ID???

you see, even to this point, you apparently duck the issue on hard research and findings which have passed the scrutiny of the global scientific community ... and I can see why ... even the experts on trial admitted to such lacks ...

... and yet, with all of this, you still claim that ID is a valid science ...


LCKob



[edit on 14-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
the_patriot2004:

"If you notice in my post i did not accuse you of such behavior, in fact i said I wasnt-I was talking of others, you have been one of the most sensible people here, some of the others here, even ones arguing for ID have shown childishness and rudeness and make a bad name for whatever theory they present. which is partly why I am not so sure I want to spend a large amount of my time here if everyone was as sensible as you I would have no issues with spending a lot of time here.

I do, I just dont take my sources from the internet or other sites, I take mine from nature.

LCKob:

Well you see, thats part of the rub, you say that your sources are "from nature" ... okay, I have no problem with that ... but observation is just the first step in a methodology ... to be followed by the formation of an observational assertion as in a hypothesis or theory ... which in turn requires a rigorous set of testing and the acumulation of data to support any such claims ... then the cycle repeats on a continual basis to refine working models in regards to consistent interactive integration into a larger schema ...

you have a problem with taking evidence from nature, yet that is what we have, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but maybe you need to redefine science....

So, you make an assertion, you pose a hypothesis .... now where is the data, testing and peer review for such material?????

I have presented such evidence multiple times so have other people...

the_patriot2004

"The courts have been known to be wrong,"

LCKob:

Please read carefully... the ID proponents themselves made no claims for science... quite the opposite in fact ... thus I don't think "changing" the nature of science to include the supernatural as a given is such a keen idea ... and obviously neither does the judge ...

the statement of the few doesnt not mean its not science, but to be technical, both ID and Evolution is a hypothesis and that is it, and its funny your definition of the nature of science. you think that adding the supernatural is changing the nature of science, yet if the earth was made by the supernatural your not changing it, and to be totally honest, for you to totally preclude ID is not science thats Bias, science is the honest search for truth, looking at the facts and determining from what the evidence what is true. this statement that the supernatural is changing the nature of science is telling me that your biased and that you really dont care what I have to say, since it isnt science to you. Now I have shown you respect, and shown the evolution to be just as much of a theory as ID, now, I never accused it of changing science, yet that is what you accuse me of doing.

... and so once again, I am left with no data, no body of research, no peer endorsed publication detailing a methodical process of testing and refinement

...all I get from you is assertions.

no, I have shown you time and time again figures, actual animals that disprove the evolution theory, even the laws of physics-what more do you want.

the_patriot2004:

... if you look at it, neither Evolution or ID is actual science, since neither one follow the scientific method, none of us saw an animal evolving nor an supreme being make the world,

LCkob:

Specious argument ... in that yes, no one was around to see the beginning of things ... true, but does that mean that one has free license to "fill in the blanks" and call it science ... no. and the court and your proponents agree.

The_patriot2004
correct, but if you look at evolution they do just that. Im going to bring in Nebraska man for example. scienists found a single tooth and drew up a being they called the missing link, "Nebraska man" the funny part was the same scientists later found the rest of the skeleton the tooth belonged to later on, and it wasnt the missing link at all but a then thought extinct form of pig. shortly after that that breed of pig was found living in the congo. and Nebraska man is still taught in our public schools as the missing link, when proved its not, how is that science? its a lie that we're teaching to your kids, that is what I call filling in the blanks. You want articles for that, go to www.drdino.com I believe you can find it there, as well as a 2 million reward for impirical proof of evolution. or go to google, and type in Answers in Genesis you will find a site there that will contain links to this article. the court is right, we dont have the right to fill in the blanks and call it science, ID scientists dont and neither do evolutionists, yet this is what we see in our public schools across the nation.

As for evolution ... it is not complete, not is it perfect, but it has accumulated a large body of evidence (observed and otherwise), research,critically assessed peer reviewed material and it has shown the inate SM capacity to "evolve" with new data ... and it in principle "does not make stuff up" or add in elements that have no basis in fact, data, or concrete measurable evidence of some sort. So yes, no one "observed" the beginnings ... and as such ID proponents say "life is complex god must have done it" ... Evolution? ... well from what has been found ... we (the scientific community) have formulated a basic working model for life on earth ... actually there are subsets to this and controversy over various points, but ... due to the research, data and collected evidence we have the model of "Evolution" ... as for the very beginnings of life ... there is much debate and the research is ongoing ... but no difinitive answer as yet.

the_patriot2004
Its funny how the evolution theory changes from year to year with new ideas, often contradicting the old ones, i have seen public school textbooks that contradict themselves, its always "evolving" so to speak, yet ID always stays the same, something to be said there....

ID= God!

SM=?? hmmm I would like to find out ...

The thing is that I am not opposed to the POSSIBILITY of a creator... but in the case of ID ... Proponents for ID have a built in desire to confirm a Diety instead of gathering information and data to determine if the evidence supports such a creator.

Hmmmmm ... to recap:

ID:

1. Observation
2. Assertion/theory
3. ........ ?????

Evolution by way of SM:

1. Observation
2. Assertion/theory
3. Very large body of research in multiple overlapping fields with documented method aquired data and ongoing evaluation of findings ... validate findings with global scientific community by way of publication/info distribution including raw data.
4. Refinement of working predictor models with ever increasing accuracy and greater global integration into larger causal schema.
5. working hypotheis/theory
6. Repeat steps 1-5

... where are these things for ID???

the_patriot2004
again these things have been viewed, but before i jump back into this again, let me ask, what will you accept as science or evidence, if you wont accept my arguments because you are against ID and biased for evolution, which you are you have said as much in your earlier statement that we are adding the supernatural into science, then what will you accept? am I wasting my time here?



you see, even to this point, you apparently duck the issue on hard research and findings which have passed the scrutiny of the global scientific community ... and I can see why ... even the experts on trial admitted to such lacks ...

... and yet, with all of this, you still claim that ID is a valid science ...

and yet again, I have thoroughly researched it, Not what the court says or some expert, but I see in nature, and you accuse me of ducking, when I brought up the law of entropy you gave me this entire long speech on why it doesnt apply which was confusing to the average reader, and when one scrutinized it found that it contradicted itself. if your going to contradict yourself on something as simple as the law of entropy, and not accept that as even remote evidence, then again what will you accept?

LCKob





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join