Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[Techne]

Yoh, cant keep up with both of you >.< ... Im trying to do masters in pharmaceutics next year. Ive published animal testing data on traditional medicine versus western medicine to see if there is any viability in it. Ive done the use bioisoflavaones in CNS disorders and Ive done supportive research on MDR-TB with regards to the tuberculostatic drug ehtionamide and its thyroid toxic effects.

I tend to create a new dermatological preparation for autoimmune diseases next year.

Lekker. Hopefully you don't have to work with plant extracts .

Now I will respond to the rest of the post another time.

Oh yes about the laws, they are not debatable, you can add to them, but there is nothing philosophical about them. If we were to add for example and say "our law of gravity would not hold in a parallel universe" , now we amalgamate what we know and we theorise rationally and practically prove, HOWEVER parallel universes per say has not been proven therefore you cannot TOUCH the law of gravity with this information. In the end it boils down to degree of information you present. Primary, secondary and tertiary levels.

What it means to be a "law" is a fascinating philosophical and logical question. For example, are they prescriptive or descriptive?

For example, if you think a law is prescriptive you might think a law somehow has an influence in how matter interacts. The statement “a law governs” is taken literally whereby the law has some effect on the things it governs.

If, on the other hand, you think a law is descriptive, then a law is merely a descriptive term to describe how matter regularly interacts with each other. The statement “a law governs” is used figuratively in this sense.

To put it another way.

1) The law of gravity has an influence on how matter interacts (prescriptive). A law on this view has some sort of power to control matter.
2) The law of gravity describes the regular interactions of matter (descriptive). A law on this view is just a description of observations, it has no power to affect anything.

I don't think many people would argue for a prescriptive view as if laws exist in some Platonic Realm that governs how the physical world should be, but there are some that do.

If we accept that laws are only descriptive, ask yourself whether there is "a natural necessary connection between cause and effect.”

I would argue that there is and perhaps you may agree. But let's look at what happens when you deny this simple principle.

The philosopher David Hume famously argued that "Effects are distinct events from their causes". In other words, there is no necessary connection between cause and effect. Hume argued that "we can always conceive of one such event occurring and the other not". In effect, Hume denied the first principle that here is a natural necessary connection between cause and effect.

Such a denial has interesting epistemological consequences for the empirical sciences and empirical observations. The first is the problem of induction. The problem is a fundamental problem with regards to observation and then generalization about observations. It is especially relevant with people's views about the Laws of Nature. The problem in its earliest form argues “A universal rule could not be established from an incomplete set of particular instances.

“Laws of Nature (or the laws of physics ) are just one type of "universal rule" that are established from particular and incomplete empirical observations. If the problem is not solved, it would imply that no amount of empirical observations can establish any universal rule, including laws of nature. It is important to understand that this problem does not pose a problem for the scientific method or scientific research and the practical benefits stemming from it. Rather the problem is related to the more fundamental claims that are made as a result of empirical inquiry.

The problem of induction is a direct result of the denial of the first principle related to the necessary connection between cause and effect. It would imply that no amount of empirical observations can in principle establish any universal rule, including laws of nature, as we can always conceive of causes that are not followed by their natural effects. You can also see how the problem of induction leads one to take a view with regards to laws of nature whereby they are statements of the uniformity or regularities in nature and mere descriptions of the way the world is.

It leads to a view of science whereby science discovers regularities in nature but these observations of regularities will never be complete (since things change, we observe ever more regularities and can conceive of causes not followed by their effects etc.). Thus, no law of nature can be established that can be a "principle" that governs "natural phenomena of the world".

This of course has a direct impact on the importance of common sense as well. Common sense just is knowledge gained from observation (be it empirically scientific or not) and observations will be always be incomplete and thus no "universal rule" or "principles that govern reality" can be gained from common sense (or empirical science for that matter). Any appeal to common sense or empirical science would thus be incomplete and with regards to trying to set up universal rules, i.e. common sense and empirical science would be worthless in trying to argue for laws of nature.

So that is why the problem of induction and the relationship between cause and effect are relevant to your claims about laws of nature "not being debatable".

However, I actually agree with the view that empirical science can discover universal laws, I reject Hume's view. I think there is a necessary connection between cause and effect and I think there are good arguments to support this view and deny Hume's take on things.

By affirming the first principle of there being a necessary connection between cause and effect, a different scientific world view emerges. By accepting that there is a necessary connection between cause and effect the following follows:
1) There is something in the nature of a cause that results in it having necessary connection to its effect. Aristotelian essentialism follows.
2) Science is thus in the business of trying to discover the natures of things.
3) Laws of nature are thus discovered and are truths about how objects behave. Therefore, how an object behaves depends wholly on what kind of thing it is and what nature it has as an objective fact. In short "the laws of nature are the laws of natures".

So in essence, I support your take on "laws of nature" but I would argue that the best way to hold such a view is by being an Aristotelian .

[Swa]

ever heard of an analogy? sigh since when you take something like this literal its beyond me.

And this just proves again that analogies are not a good way to explain something. They are generally terrible.

It has, reference this with peer reviwed data please and physical evidence refuting evolution. No more subjective talk.

Bring something (peer-reviewed or not) that is not subjective to prove it.

Did you pass high school english? because you lacking some comprehensive skills.

Somehow I don't think my comprehension skills are the problem, I can make out most of the gibberish others write here. In any case your definition clearly shows that evolution isn't just change, it's very specifically defined change.

Evolution is defined as ANY change, for the better or worse, expressed in the DNA. What is adaptation? its a change in a living organism for the better. How these adaptations ocur? VIA THE GENES IN THE DNA STRUCTURE thereby expressing a change in the lifeform. End of story.

Evolution is change over successive generations of inherited traits. More specifically from a common or single common ancestor. Your redefinition reminds of how after no warming effect materialised global warming has been redefined to climate change because, well anybody can see that the climate changes. Let's see if we can get an honest answer here. Are changes always the result of genetic mutation?

Perhaps I shall refine my graphite diamond analogy. By saying adaption is not an evolutionary process is like saying graphite and diamond are not the same carbon atoms (dont be a smartass and claim isotopes here because if you do then you dont understand a thing and need to go back to school).

Ah so you're claiming that diamond and graphite are the same because they both consist of carbon atoms. Fair enough but your analogy doesn't quite hold. See above for how evolution is commonly defined. Now you see a simple thing like adaptations (will wait for your answer before going further with that) which is actually just a part of the theory and jump straight to that proves evolution.

... you expect evidence over millions of years old to sit in a nicely preserved book ? oh wait you a creationist you do... damn. Care to disprove our homonid fossils ? i.e Lucy

We've been through hominid fossils a while back. Lucy is another example of a fossil evolutionists can't even agree if it was a hominid. The problem with your claim of the fossil record not being well enough preserved is that it's well enough preserved to show species as largely static. Some species have hundreds of specimens detailing virtually no change but nothing detailing their evolution. Many paleontologists have stated that the fossil record is remarkably well enough preserved to show gradual changes if these existed. Ironically the gaps originally denied by evolutionists is being used by some to promote punctuated equilibrium. It provides good comedy to watch this Darwinian circus.

So you claim my theory with more evidence is fake and you say i must not claim it as the truth? and yet I dont see the evidence of god (what evidence show me), YET you are as arrogant to claim it is true? same sentiment can be claimed on this nothing but mere witchcraft and wizzardry..... naive

Its this form of ignorance that has allowed religion to be the most destructive force known to man. Religion has caused the most bloodshed in history and still does it today, now you can see why.

Your theory has nothing but subjective evidence so you can claim the mountain to be as high as you like but it will always amount to ****ing nothing. I don't care if you want to believe in God or not as I already said so you're just pissing against the wind there. You are the one that's arrogant and ignorant to claim something as proven fact when you really have nothing more than me. I would like to see some proof that religion has been responsible for the most bloodshed in history.

I am medically trained sir, I was head of department in a specalist psychiatric hospital. Therefore I say again dont sprout nonsense.

Yet other people who are medically trained would disagree with you. Just ask Arthur here. I've also read enough on the subject to know you're the one sprouting nonsense here. It's not so easy to declare people as insane today as you claim it to be.

really? where is the original cross jesus was crucified on? show me the spear of destiny ? show me where is noah's arc its a boat that was GRAND in scale, if we can still find colonial shipwrecks, im sure noah's boat should be there.

You're sprouting nonsense.

uh ? I know this but im responding to your statement, so explain it in terms of your:

The expanding universe (if true) does not violate change being an illusion any more than you being in your bed and then later not being in your bed. If change is an illusion then each state already exists or is in an undeterminate state. Quantum physics suggests an undeterminate universe as a real possibility. Only logically coherent states can be perceived by the conscious. You therefor see a logically coherent expanding universe because that's the only ordered states. All other states are disorderly so you are incapable of perceiving them because in those states your mind literally falls apart.

You said change cannot exist not me. Wait? but you say adaptation is real ?!? uhm... elaborate please

Seems I'm really not the one without the comprehension skills. I said it can be argued philosophically that change must be an illusion. That does not mean the argument would be true or that it can be validated.

They were lol

There are examples of people not being illiterate like in Acts 8:30 Philip came across a man reading from Isaiah. It stands to reason if Jesus wanted to spread the Word accurately He would choose people that could read and write. Paul was a learned official that wrote letters to the Galatians amongst others. He would have had access to first hand knowledge from Jesus' disciples. While full literacy was not so common there is a lot to show that basic writing was the norm. Common material found in Luke and Matthew that don't appear in Mark was most likely the unorganised scribblings of town folk. Only a few people with some literacy would be required. There were a little more than that around at the time.

Source them, or better yet Im a busy person since you have claimed to study them give me the synopsis pelase. No more eye accounts of vampire,witches and wizzards. Becareful what you say is historically accurate, if you claimed someone to exist in history you must have proof beyond writings. Statues, writings, and a body/grave, again I give you the examples of the egyptian farohs, thats how I know they existed. Family tree records, bloodline something?

Page through the books of the bible. Contrary to the popular claim it is not a book but a collection of books that independently corroborate each other. You are like someone that finds a collection of books written by different authors at different times reinforcing each other and then claiming they must be untrustworthy because you can't find any books outside the collection.

Where is Jesus' mother buried btw? Who was her parents?. These arent unknown people like you or me that would fade into time, these are iconic people like the kings of past, its hard to believe they would've NOT been remembered through time.

Jewish tradition doesn't count females in bloodlines. Where a bloodline passes through a female her husband is named as the father even if he isn't biologically. Ironically only those born of Jewish mothers are automatically Jews. Joseph's father is given as Heli (Luke 3:23) so Joseph is seen as the father of Jesus. Tradition has it along the lines of Heli's wife Anna being the mother of Mary. Anna's sister's daughter was Elizabeth the mother of John the baptist. Luke 1:5,36 states Elizabeth and Mary as being related. Depending on how the bloodline is viewed they are both from Aaron from the tribe of Levi. Jesus received the bloodline of David through Mary and the kingship of David through His "father" Joseph. John is said to be filled with the Holy Spirit and it's only when Jesus is baptised by him specifically that He receives the Holy Spirit. Those are the parts I consider important.

I dont, its called theorising simple concept really hence why i began paragraph with "Here's a thought". Do you believe vampires exist btw?

No, but I do believe most tales have an origin in reality. If you want to make another thread we can discuss where the vampire belief originated. Your problem is trying to force an answer to an unanswerable question instead of picking a belief and saying this is what you belief. You're using science (wrongly) to try to justify your belief.

[Swa]

Yet you ask for evidence from over 200 million years ago, strange you can ask but I cannot? and its only a mere 4000 years, come on make a plan. :P

Futhermore the egyptian farohs and their cities are still there today and they existed more or less at the same time. Metal doesnt degrade in 4000 years sir, you telling me not so much AS ONE SWORD can be found? yet its said he washed away AN ENTIRE army.

Why is it unrealistic?

And THIS why evolutionists are not reasonable to debate with. You keep missing the obvious that most people reading this sees. I only ask you for evidence because you insist it's a fact. Clearly when you can't provide that and the more we look at the evidence the more it also confirms another version it becomes apparent that these are all beliefs that nobody can prove. Your intolerance is flippin' amazing.

Most rubbish i've ever read. SO heaven takes physical objects hmmm, the sky opened up and took his body? that would mean heaven is physical in nature if it can support matter, that means it can be found, seen or even be caught emitting energy. So where is it then?

How did his physical body go UP? elevator? golden staircase? claw machine ? did he fly?what? sounds more like a convience to me.

Please answer these questions I really like to know

There's a lot to suggest that heaven is physical. I don't care if you think it's rubbish. Your own version of toads turning into frogs sounds equally rubbish to someone on the other side of the fence.

huh? yes self replicating celllular membranes derived from basic animo acids and fatty acids is totally not substantial, nor is DNA modification substantial. Nor is watching the process of resistance in bacteria using nuclear stained dyes on peptides substantial... but of course

BUT A MAN SAID TO ASCEND TO HEAVEN..... totally is. WOW. Again present your evidence, I can take you to my labs and show you these things in real time, what you got? a picture ?

Here are the questions:

• How did the first amino acids form and remain around long enough to form DNA?
• How did they form a complex language quick enough before they withered away into non-existence?
• How did the proteins themselves encoded in this language form?
• Once these proteins for protein synthesis, DNA replication, nutrient assimilation, a total of ~400 essential elements for life formed how did the system remain intact and protected long enough for the correct cellular membranes and supporting proteins to form?
• Once all this magically came into existence on it's own why did this system not deteriorate and instead gained information and complexity? All indications are that is something that doesn't happen.

If you can't answer these basic questions about a non-basic process then your idea that it must be the more logical explanation is quite frankly stupid. You can't support your own belief and instead resort to attacking mine.

Its does have a common ancestor its called DNA. /snip

This is just getting more ludicrous.

BTW @ Swa WTH does entropy got to do with evolution? are you trying to imply that basic amino acids would prefer to stay that way because of entropy ?!?

Not only would they "prefer" to stay that way but they don't form at all without a force acting through a mechanism. The inclination of the universe is to become more disorderly and for spontaneous order not to arise. That is the implication of entropy. Systems don't form themselves and they don't repair themselves.

Now for your misconception on the laws of physics. There is nothing that says those laws must be universal. They hold true locally in all confirmed instances so they can be assumed universal. The simple fact is that violations can only be considered not to occur because if they occur then they do not influence us in any major everyday way. I'll illustrate with an example of Mr Dumbass scientist. The example of a third charge is not that it doesn't exist but that if it does then it's not in our sphere of the universe or so rare as not to be detectable that we can reliably ignore it and still describe the universe. It's thus not actually assuming it doesn't exist but that it's existence or non-existence is irrelevant.

To use science to prove or disprove God thus makes for a very bad scientist. The question of God's existence is a philosophical one with no sure answer either way. It's not that God can be assumed not to exist but rather that He's irrelevant (said with respect) for a scientific investigation because if He exists then He allows His creation to persist in a predictable manner that we can investigate. Asking for sure proof of God or looking for proof of His non-existence in science is thus missing the point that it's a faith based decision either way.

The theory of evolution is not LAW or fact beside its missing information, information that the churches around the world pray on. Yet they fail to realise they devote their lives like slaves to a book written on paper, they live their lives in hope for reward after death how sad. In my field of work, god has NO POWER. When I went to consult with the speciailist doctors of ICU and nICU and you see the families all of them with each respective ideals of each religion praying hard for the god they worship to provide salvation for their new born babies ect... Its repaid with a plea upon deafs ears. Then they ignorantly claim its god's will.
When those patients survive, because 5 doctors sat in theatre operation for 17 hours, the fact that they made it alive because some medical company sold them high quality tools, some pharmaceutical company bothered to spend 200 billion pounds worth of research to design a single molecule, that some pharmacist in the hospital didnt botch up making up the drugs, getting the right anaesthetic, ensuring that the doctor's dosing is PRECISE, working out the reversal correctly. That the nurses observed them properly in resus .... then they come conscious and go "thank god" . Well there were about 200 people that saved your life, by their skill and expertise NOT god.

This is your misconception. Either way you are going to make yourself a slave either to God or to materialism. Not seeing God's power in action does not mean it isn't present. If God exists He is not manifesting in a way that it would be easily detectable and if He were how are we going to determine it. We look at statistics to determine probability so if God was making decisions we would simply factor them into our statistics unknowingly. You see no evidence of God because you don't want to just like others see evidence of Him because they want to. And the same doctors you claim are being deprived of credit for saving people's lives regularly say they couldn't have done it without God.

It really does amaze me that in the 21st people are so against science.

It's like people who claim vaccines are bad and then go to the doctor when they get sick.

These people are using technology that came about through science and use this technology to discredit science.

This is really astounding.

It's like driving to a car convention and protesting cars.

That's like atheists praying to God reminding him that he doesn't exist.

Oh just stop with these tiresome canards will ya...

[RiaX]

I do believe most tales have an origin in reality

Star Wars was a nice tale. The story of medusa was a nice tale, pegesis was awesome, wish it ran the july for me.

Jewish tradition doesn't count females in bloodlines. Where a bloodline passes through a female....Those are the parts I consider important

again, where the graves? and official documents? How the hell does a ghost get a woman pregnant, I would really like to know.

Contrary to the popular claim it is not a book but a collection of books

So its like the Lord of rings ed that had all 3 volumes in one book, convienient but that doesnt change the fact its just fancy fable.

There are examples of people not being illiterate like in Acts 8:30 Philip came across a man reading from Isaiah

Again you assume your bible is FACT

argued philosophically that change must be an illusion

Yes typical idiotic debating skills, use retarded philosophy thats utter nonsense to disprove evidence. WOW

The expanding universe (if true) does not violate change being an illusion any more than you being in your bed and then later not being in your bed. If change is an illusion then each state already exists or is in an undeterminate state. Quantum physics suggests an undeterminate universe as a real possibility.

Its true, read up on dopplereffect.

Again using the idea of change an illusion, only an idiot would believe this. If i cut of your arm, the change will be real. The change in your size from now and when you were in your mother's womb is real.

Dont try and merge quantum mechanics with general mechanics, shows your lack of understanding of physics.

You're sprouting nonsense.

Nope. there is ZERO physical evidence to everything your storybook claims. Im sprouting nonsense according to you because you cannot respond with an answer

Yet other people who are medically trained would disagree with you. Just ask Arthur here. I've also read enough on the subject to know you're the one sprouting nonsense here. It's not so easy to declare people as insane today as you claim it to be.

Infamous Dr Google rofl. Firstly the fact that you assume insanity as worst case scenario, like batman's joker ect and tthe patient is in a padded cell with a jacket. You do know anyone with any form of mental illness can be insane, even if you slightly depressed you can be declared insane.

See for you, you read information on the internet but you dont have the basic understanding to process this information and you assume you know something about the topic when you clearly DONT, what we in medicine call Dr Google. 'Insane' is not a medical term no psych textbook or reference will ever use the word insane. Insane is a legal term, not a medical one, denoting a state of mental illness. So there we go all you have proved by "reading up" is that you read utter nonsense or couldnt understand what you read.

as I said ... DONT SPROUT NONSENSE.

Your theory has nothing but subjective evidence

Okay MDR/XDR TB desnt exist thats totally subjective. Evolution of influenza based virons all subjective, changes in HIV-1 virus to block first gen antivirals is subjective too , who wouldve THAT ALL THESE GENETIC CHANGES ARE SUBJECTIVE !?!?! omw, I will make sure to tell the head of pharmaceutical services that we dont need the newer drugs because evolution doesnt exist therefore these strains cant exist. ROFL. What a think cancer is subjective, and those with sickle cell anaemia.

Oh yes show me YOUR evidence OUTSIDE your storybook.

I would like to see some proof that religion has been responsible for the most bloodshed in history.

Are you serious ?

It provides good comedy to watch this Darwinian circus

yes they say ignorance is bliss

Ah so you're claiming that diamond and graphite are the same because they both consist of carbon atoms. Fair enough but your analogy doesn't quite hold. See above for how evolution is commonly defined.

Uhm, lol do you even know how DNA works? the difference between a diamond and graphite is the structure of the atoms.

Likewise the difference between your eye and a cat's eye is the difference in the DNA, the arrangement of the nucleoside bases.

Evolution is change over successive generations of inherited traits. More specifically from a common or single common ancestor.

LOL no its not, you cant change the DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION because you feel like. Thats like saying someone reads out a dictionary definition and you go "no". What you stating is the theory of evolution. Its not hard to see the difference.

see that the climate changes.

Look for the satelite and data from weather systems, then you can see it.

in a nice video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF5Fx...feature=relmfu

Are changes always the result of genetic mutation?

Depense on what changes you are refering to. See who is forcing an answer now :P

If you get cut and the blood changes to heal that cut then no thats not a change on the basis of DNA. If you get a disease like hypertension, diabetes ect that is. Also note that genes are not as simple as you think, clearly you have zero understanding of proper genetics. Its a difficult field, you wont understand it if you didnt work with it or study it (school doesnt count here).

Bring something (peer-reviewed or not) that is not subjective to prove it.

There are 77 000 give or take scholar peer reviewed articles proving evolution how about actually going to a library or a journal site and looking ?

Where are yours that are not funded by the church?

And this just proves again that analogies are not a good way to explain something. They are generally terrible.

Nope just proves you ignorant, and have shut your mind to options which are explained to you metaphorically. In your mind your creationism is ABSOLUTE TRUTH and has zero loopholes and will never be wrong till the end of time per say.

[RiaX]

not seeing God's power in action does not mean it isn't present

Why you keep refering to god as "he" ? interesting.

You dont see god's power because it only exists in the minds silly enough to think it as true. The mind is an extremely powerful thing, when you do ward rounds in a psych hospital then you will see. Also look at schitzophirenia to see how the mind in shear belief can CREATE things that the patient would believe.

If you have watched shutter island thats a good way of imagining how powerful the mind can be.

AGAIN you have evidence to prove that your god's power if not some from of placebo effect. Nor do you have any physical evidence of his existance, mere fables nothing more.

Not only would they "prefer" to stay that way but they don't form at all without a force acting through a mechanism

That would hold true for neutral objects. However there is a reason why water is key for life, because it can induece charges which are denoted as delta positive and delta negative. Its got to do with the electronegativity of oxygen.

Next amino acids will not stay and do nothing, they can attract each other since they are charged, both negatively and positively i.e zwitter ion. Unlike forces attract, end of story.

You use entropy because you THINK you know something about it, and you use it out of its context. disorder and chaos in an ISOLATED system. So if i break a glass the idea of entropy stops that glass reforming on its own, BUT when you driving in the rain and the little rain drops start forming big rain drops on your windshield thats because there are other forces in play, in your case it would mean that these rain drops must stay in chaos state because entropy says so, but it doesnt it forms a pool and a ordered state of a puddle, of course if the system was isolated that puddle would not form. THAT is entropy. The number of states matter can be in, a wine glass low entropy it can only be a wine glass, shards of glass high entropy they can be arranged in any mannor.

There is nothing that says those laws must be universal. They hold true locally in all confirmed instances so they can be assumed universal.

Does our sun NOT orbit the milky way galatic core? is earth the only thing orbiting the sun? is the moon not orbiting the earth? is gravity not the cause of all this ? is gravity the same on earth as it is on the moon?

There universal LAW proven.

This is just getting more ludicrous.

Why because in your mind you a single living organism? and you assume that because you have a conscious. Take away DNA what you left with?

Here are the questions:

How did the first amino acids form and remain around long enough to form DNA?
How did they form a complex language quick enough before they withered away into non-existence?
How did the proteins themselves encoded in this language form?
Once these proteins for protein synthesis, DNA replication, nutrient assimilation, a total of ~400 essential elements for life formed how did the system remain intact and protected long enough for the correct cellular membranes and supporting proteins to form?
Once all this magically came into existence on it's own why did this system not deteriorate and instead gained information and complexity? All indications are that is something that doesn't happen.

-Organic material has been shown to survive hundreds of million years, if there is no mechanism in play why would an animo acid as just dissolve?

Amino acids form in a chemical reaction involving nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon and energy. The formation of amino acids is not in question its easy to make an animo acid from scratch. Hell we can even make peptides :P, stanley miller's experiment showed that its possible to create animo acids from raw materials with systems that are present on the earth, that experiment has been validated over and over and over and is still there on display. Its also been upgraded many times.

-Amino acids will coagulate to form peptides in the correct conditions, as explained above they are zwitter ions.

- interesting even you say "themselves", personifying amino acids now are we? lol. Simple the amino acids did not achieve DNA when it first formed into peptides, it formed peptides by trial an error, just like how every snow flake and a different shape and its extremely complex, same thing. eventually dna wouldve formed from this.

- lol membranes formed second to DNA , it wasnt considered alive at the time, you cant suddendly go you had an amino acid then a peptide then dna and suddenly through in a eukaryotic cell :/ come now the metamorphasis is far more complex than that. Early life would have been non living in nature :P (can you ever) like a viron dna, couple of peptides and a casing. Early membranes were not biphosolipids like cells todays, they were basic self replicating fatty acid chains. These membranes have been created successfully in the lab and is an extension of miller's experiment.

- It did fall, see the fossils ? you assume again its a perfect straight line. Miller's experiment never allowed peptides to form and formed potent cyanide. However its purpose was to prove amino acids can form like proposed. It did that, it also provides you with your answer. Go outside and sample the garden dirt, your failed amino acids and peptides are there. Nature doesnt like to waste things :P

I've answered your questions you have yet to provide me with a single answer... because you dont have any outside your storybook :P

Oh yes one last thing, if jesus ascended and went to heaven howcome the rest of you christians when you die, you have to be buried and dont suddendly fly up into the sky in a holy violation of gravity? instead we have to put you in the ground where you decompose back into amino acids :P (yes the very same one theory of evolution exlaims to exist) and then plants eat that and grass grows on your grave. Hmmmm, guess it goes back to hindu principles, from death there is rebirth. Oh wait christianity says there is only one god, oh well

[RiaX]

Firstly, take a day-trip to the swamps on Rwenzori-447 where physical bodies repel with a force proportional to their masses

Again you didnt read what I typed. ISOLATED system. There are other laws of physics in play. Gravity rangest from the strongest force in the universe to the weakest. When considering nature with other forces in play yuo cant suddendly look at only one law. You must accomadte it as a complete system. Come on if you passed high school, and intelligent enough to type here like you guys are (especially considering the level of english you use) I am suprised I must elaborate to this extent.

Lekker. Hopefully you don't have to work with plant extracts .

would rather work with plants, than debate on the internet. Im just killing time

What it means to be a "law" is a fascinating philosophical and logical question. For example, are they prescriptive or descriptive?

Again they are not debatable, you can extend them but the concept doesnt change. No matter what if i drop something it will fall to the ground, even a helium balloon that goes up is in sense still "falling to earth". Dont try and use fancy articulated sentences to confuse people. You logic is flawed.

1) The law of gravity has an influence on how matter interacts (prescriptive). A law on this view has some sort of power to control matter.
2) The law of gravity describes the regular interactions of matter (descriptive). A law on this view is just a description of observations, it has no power to affect anything.

Doesnt change the fact that the objects attract, irrelevant when speaking about the law of gravity. When talking about HOW the force arises between two masses, well thats a different story.

If we accept that laws are only descriptive

They suppose to be purely objevtive and precise, nothing more nothing less. Adding speculation belongs under hypothese and philosophy. To not be mistaken to mix the two together and claim its science. This is why Sir Issac Newton is considered history's best physicist, he derived the most laws. Want to prove something, form a hypothesis, prove it theoretically with mathematics then prove it practically. It must then be repeated numerous times by independant scientist and the results MUST NOT DIFFER, then you can claim solid evidence.

The philosopher David Hume famously argued...

Irrelvent, He must prove what he says with practical lab work. Otherwise it says in the philosophy class not the science labs. Science deals in objective hard evidence NOT what people think. Science is free from passion, thats the only way it can remain truthful to us and provide the REAL answers we seek.

no necessary connection between cause and effect

Violation of Newton's 3rd law, Take a gun shoot it you get recoil , doesnt matter where you are it will occur. Although its trying to provoke a form of thinking to gather support and doubt the object science we hold as fact. Poor attempt at best to disprove anything. Red will be RED, and we say that not because of our own subject view of red, se say it because of the wavelength the light emitted is.

Again the most famous philosophy is incorrect, utter nonsense at best. "the glass is it half full or half empty?" , in reality the glass is NEVER empty its half air half water, and thats the scientific point of view.

It leads to a view of science whereby science discovers regularities in nature but these observations of regularities will never be complete (since things change, we observe ever more regularities and can conceive of causes not followed by their effects etc.). Thus, no law of nature can be established that can be a "principle" that governs "natural phenomena of the world".

There are no "views" in science just fact, that is why humanity spends BILLIONS of dollars on science research to iron out those irregularities and/or fill in the missing gaps. Hence why science has evolved to making modern cellphones, GPS, computers advances in medicine ect ect ... but religion has served no purpose but to allow someone to be at ease upon their death.

EDIT** Okay I lie here, religion had a purpose. I believe its important for teaching children the difference between whats right and whats wrong. Its caused lots of bloodshed, but its also prevented alot of bloodshed an anarchy. However its purpose has now expired science has grown up long enough because the fear of god's wrath has allowed reason and intellect to rise above anarchy. Also provided some fantasic artworks. Now its time it retires

Uhm there are principles that govern the natural world. Speed of light is constant not matter where you are or how far you are. Light will always travel at the same speed. Observation is one of the most important aspects of science. Again by obeserving you not satisfying the criteriaw for creating fact, lots more work must be done

Common sense just is knowledge gained from observation

Agreed

observations will be always be incomplete and thus no "universal rule" or "principles that govern reality" can be gained from common sense

Rubbish. Laws of physics are not based on just observation. Observation allows you to form a hypothesis to test, OR it provides you with results to your experiment. For example:

Newton got hit by an apple, he OBSERVED that (or felt it) and it made him think "why did the apple fall" he did not go "Im going to CALL this gravity" no no no no lots of mathematics and hard work and experiementation went in before he called it "gravity"

In chemistry you observe a reaction, if I claim Sodium metal reacts with water and I wish to prove it then I observe. I take sodium metal and place it in water and watch. If nothing happens i note it, if something happens i note that too. Then i draw a conclusion, I dont assume a thing from just observing.

So in essence, I support your take on "laws of nature" but I would argue that the best way to hold such a view is by being an Aristotelian

And this is the reason Ive torn your post a part (some what out of context though) even though you were agreeing with me to some extent. AS I stated earlier there are no views in science. No subjectivity, just fact. We have a question, so we get an answer. 1 + 1 = 2

that fact in terms of mathematics is true, it will never change no matter how much you argue on a quantum level the plus sign does this and that and its actually both plus and minus because electrons are in different places in universe simulatenously and they have strings that create membranes of parallel universes in the other universes there are different laws of physics and mathematics and god said its 4.

RUBBISH. its 2, it will always be 2 and there is NO OTHER WAY TO SEE IT. thats what it means to be objective. And thats how solid a law of physics is. People end to take new proposed ideas, fresh experiments and try and augment the FACTS with theory taken as FACT.

You will see people going mad over this higgs-bozon particle, but everything beyond an electron is not fact its solid but not fact. 10 years time it might be all wrong, even Newton was wrong in his model of space. Even after they fight and debate this sub atomic particle, if I pick up a stone and drop it it will fall to the earth. Law of gravity is still in effect.

[rwenzori]

Again you didnt read what I typed. ISOLATED system. There are other laws of physics in play. Gravity rangest from the strongest force in the universe to the weakest. When considering nature with other forces in play yuo cant suddendly look at only one law. You must accomadte it as a complete system. Come on if you passed high school, and intelligent enough to type here like you guys are (especially considering the level of english you use) I am suprised I must elaborate to this extent.

I must have missed that ISOLATED bit in referring to your statement about what a law is - videlicet: "A law is something that cannot be disproved by any means, no matter what you say or what you do you cannot disprove the concept. ". Who cares about gravity - we need to get to law first, and you don't seem to have a very clear idea of that. It would be really sweet of you to answer my questions to you about the universality of these "laws". You see, your statement "about the laws, they are not debatable, you can add to them, but there is nothing philosophical about them" is a tad off beam, and all I am trying to do, out of the kindness of my black heart, is to demonstrate to you that your house may be built on sand.

And yes, I did scrape through high school - I even beat Jewlyarse by getting 25% for woodwork. I even learned to use a speling chequer too LOL.

EDIT.

PS. Having read some of your response to Techne, you would do well to go read up a bit on philosophy of science, especially on induction. Not that I am in agreement with him, god forbid. For at this stage your prattlings about observation, principles and laws are sounding a bit silly.

[Techne]

would rather work with plants, than debate on the internet. Im just killing time

Plant extracts are tricky.

Again they are not debatable, you can extend them but the concept doesnt change. No matter what if i drop something it will fall to the ground, even a helium balloon that goes up is in sense still "falling to earth". Dont try and use fancy articulated sentences to confuse people. You logic is flawed.

Doesnt change the fact that the objects attract, irrelevant when speaking about the law of gravity. When talking about HOW the force arises between two masses, well thats a different story.

Don't know why you think the logic is flawed. The prescriptive/descriptive debate is quite interesting. What is your view btw?
Do you view physical laws as descriptive or prescriptive? It is not a question of "how", it is more to do with the nature of physical laws.

They suppose to be purely objevtive and precise, nothing more nothing less. Adding speculation belongs under hypothese and philosophy. To not be mistaken to mix the two together and claim its science. This is why Sir Issac Newton is considered history's best physicist, he derived the most laws. Want to prove something, form a hypothesis, prove it theoretically with mathematics then prove it practically. It must then be repeated numerous times by independant scientist and the results MUST NOT DIFFER, then you can claim solid evidence.

It appears you are confusing the descriptive/prescriptive dichotomy for the objective/subjective dichotomy. Let's for arguments sake assume laws of physics are purely objective and precise. Do you think they are descriptive or prescriptive?

Irrelvent, He must prove what he says with practical lab work. Otherwise it says in the philosophy class not the science labs. Science deals in objective hard evidence NOT what people think. Science is free from passion, thats the only way it can remain truthful to us and provide the REAL answers we seek.

The principle that there is a necessary connection between cause and effect is not something that can be empirically verified, it is a metaphysical principle. You can't go to a lab and think of an experiment to prove the principle.

The way you personalize science also appears to be problematic. Scientists work with evidence, they (i.e. subjective people) think about observations, work out hypotheses and test them. People, including scientists are NOT free from passions but scientists still seek REAL answers. Science comes from the Latin word "scientia" meaning knowledge. The knowledge gained from empirical studies is knowledge gained from people interpreting the data and publishing the data and still other peer-reviewing the data. A messy, subjective business but still pretty good. Don't put science on a pedestal as if it is somehow "free from passion" and "truthful". That is personifying it unnecessarily even though it is a pretty good way to gain knowledge about eality.

Violation of Newton's 3rd law, Take a gun shoot it you get recoil , doesnt matter where you are it will occur. Although its trying to provoke a form of thinking to gather support and doubt the object science we hold as fact. Poor attempt at best to disprove anything. Red will be RED, and we say that not because of our own subject view of red, se say it because of the wavelength the light emitted is.

Err, don't confuse the metaphysical principle of there being a "necessary connection between cause and effect" with Newton's 3rd Law.

Again the most famous philosophy is incorrect, utter nonsense at best. "the glass is it half full or half empty?" , in reality the glass is NEVER empty its half air half water, and thats the scientific point of view.

Not really sure "the glass is it half full or half empty?" was ever a philosophical or scientific principle or to be taken literally for that matter. Simple figure of speech lol.

There are no "views" in science just fact, that is why humanity spends BILLIONS of dollars on science research to iron out those irregularities and/or fill in the missing gaps. Hence why science has evolved to making modern cellphones, GPS, computers advances in medicine ect ect ... but religion has served no purpose but to allow someone to be at ease upon their death.

Don't confuse the practical gains from empirical science with philosophical views about empirical science. There are many different views about the scope of science, including the various views about the relationship between cause and effect, the nature of laws (e.g. prescriptive or descriptive, regularity or necessitarian etc.), what matter actually is, teleology etc. The way the facts are interpreted by humans is what leads to these may different views. This is not controversial and actually quite simple to understand.

Uhm there are principles that govern the natural world. Speed of light is constant not matter where you are or how far you are. Light will always travel at the same speed. Observation is one of the most important aspects of science. Again by obeserving you not satisfying the criteriaw for creating fact, lots more work must be done

Again, you will have to elaborate what you mean by "principles that govern the natural world". Are these principles prescriptive or descriptive?

Rubbish. Laws of physics are not based on just observation. Observation allows you to form a hypothesis to test, OR it provides you with results to your experiment. For example:

Newton got hit by an apple, he OBSERVED that (or felt it) and it made him think "why did the apple fall" he did not go "Im going to CALL this gravity" no no no no lots of mathematics and hard work and experiementation went in before he called it "gravity"

In chemistry you observe a reaction, if I claim Sodium metal reacts with water and I wish to prove it then I observe. I take sodium metal and place it in water and watch. If nothing happens i note it, if something happens i note that too. Then i draw a conclusion, I dont assume a thing from just observing.

Of course. Through observation, hypothesis generation and testing we are ably to generate theories and principles and even laws. None of this answers the question about whether these laws or principles are... againa... prescriptive or descriptive, or whether there is a necessary connection between cause and effect of whether the regularity view of laws is correct or the necessatarian view is correct.

And this is the reason Ive torn your post a part (some what out of context though) even though you were agreeing with me to some extent. AS I stated earlier there are no views in science. No subjectivity, just fact. We have a question, so we get an answer. 1 + 1 = 2

that fact in terms of mathematics is true, it will never change no matter how much you argue on a quantum level the plus sign does this and that and its actually both plus and minus because electrons are in different places in universe simulatenously and they have strings that create membranes of parallel universes in the other universes there are different laws of physics and mathematics and god said its 4.

RUBBISH. its 2, it will always be 2 and there is NO OTHER WAY TO SEE IT. thats what it means to be objective. And thats how solid a law of physics is. People end to take new proposed ideas, fresh experiments and try and augment the FACTS with theory taken as FACT.

You will see people going mad over this higgs-bozon particle, but everything beyond an electron is not fact its solid but not fact. 10 years time it might be all wrong, even Newton was wrong in his model of space. Even after they fight and debate this sub atomic particle, if I pick up a stone and drop it it will fall to the earth. Law of gravity is still in effect.

It appears you actually missed the point of my post and torn a straw man apart .

[Swa]

again, where the graves? and official documents? How the hell does a ghost get a woman pregnant, I would really like to know.

Where are the graves of all historical figures then?

So its like the Lord of rings ed that had all 3 volumes in one book, convienient but that doesnt change the fact its just fancy fable.

Strawman

Again you assume your bible is FACT

Again you're assuming it doesn't contain facts.

Yes typical idiotic debating skills, use retarded philosophy thats utter nonsense to disprove evidence. WOW

Disprove what evidence? You're the one that made a philosophical statement that eternity can't exist so WTF are you on about?

Again using the idea of change an illusion, only an idiot would believe this. If i cut of your arm, the change will be real. The change in your size from now and when you were in your mother's womb is real.

Dont try and merge quantum mechanics with general mechanics, shows your lack of understanding of physics.

Only an idiot would believe it? A lot of scientists are idiots then. You're using perception of change to argue actual change. I never said perception of change doesn't exist but actual change doesn't have to. LOL much of our modern world is described and determined by quantum mechanics. You like to shout ignorance and lack of understanding when others suggest ideas you don't like but proclaim your own ignorance loud and proud in the process.

Nope. there is ZERO physical evidence to everything your storybook claims. Im sprouting nonsense according to you because you cannot respond with an answer

You can't respond with an answer to any criticisms of your story. Again why the fascination with mine?

Infamous Dr Google rofl. Firstly the fact that you assume insanity as worst case scenario, like batman's joker ect and tthe patient is in a padded cell with a jacket. You do know anyone with any form of mental illness can be insane, even if you slightly depressed you can be declared insane.

See for you, you read information on the internet but you dont have the basic understanding to process this information and you assume you know something about the topic when you clearly DONT, what we in medicine call Dr Google. 'Insane' is not a medical term no psych textbook or reference will ever use the word insane. Insane is a legal term, not a medical one, denoting a state of mental illness. So there we go all you have proved by "reading up" is that you read utter nonsense or couldnt understand what you read.

as I said ... DONT SPROUT NONSENSE.

Let's go to your original statement saying "Now if you say you spoke to god and try to change the world, we admit you to psychiatry." This suggests that there is something wrong with people who claim that. Now first of all you admit that insane is not a medical term. Secondly we've established that most people in mental institutions are not there because they are insane (you conveniently ignore this). Your argument is already falling apart here. To prove your point you would have to show that everyone hearing God speak is mentally ill. We both know that there are rational people who make this claim. Your argument of simply assuming a mental illness is thus of no value. So who is the one sprouting nonsense that should know better?

Okay MDR/XDR TB desnt exist thats totally subjective. Evolution of influenza based virons all subjective, changes in HIV-1 virus to block first gen antivirals is subjective too , who wouldve THAT ALL THESE GENETIC CHANGES ARE SUBJECTIVE !?!?! omw, I will make sure to tell the head of pharmaceutical services that we dont need the newer drugs because evolution doesnt exist therefore these strains cant exist. ROFL. What a think cancer is subjective, and those with sickle cell anaemia.

You keep citing examples of adaptation and assume this is proof of some imaginary primordial slime turning into a professor.

Uhm, lol do you even know how DNA works? the difference between a diamond and graphite is the structure of the atoms.

Likewise the difference between your eye and a cat's eye is the difference in the DNA, the arrangement of the nucleoside bases.

How DNA works says nothing about how biological structures arose.

LOL no its not, you cant change the DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION because you feel like. Thats like saying someone reads out a dictionary definition and you go "no". What you stating is the theory of evolution. Its not hard to see the difference.

I know the difference pretty well. You're the one confusing the two and assuming one proves the other.

Look for the satelite and data from weather systems, then you can see it.

in a nice video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF5Fx...feature=relmfu

There is another thread for this so I'm not going to rehash it all here. You obviously missed what I was saying.

Depense on what changes you are refering to. See who is forcing an answer now :P

If you get cut and the blood changes to heal that cut then no thats not a change on the basis of DNA. If you get a disease like hypertension, diabetes ect that is. Also note that genes are not as simple as you think, clearly you have zero understanding of proper genetics. Its a difficult field, you wont understand it if you didnt work with it or study it (school doesnt count here).

Claiming to know what I think now. Typical evolutionist behaviour. Didn't know you were a mind reader. Nice dodging the question though.

There are 77 000 give or take scholar peer reviewed articles proving evolution how about actually going to a library or a journal site and looking ?

Where are yours that are not funded by the church?

77,000 articles proving we descended from a primordial slime. Shouldn't be difficult to cite just one then?

Still the fascination with church. And are you suggesting bias now? Should then discard everything done by scientists. Eish the double standard again.

Nope just proves you ignorant, and have shut your mind to options which are explained to you metaphorically. In your mind your creationism is ABSOLUTE TRUTH and has zero loopholes and will never be wrong till the end of time per say.

Substitute the word creation with evolution there and that statement would equally apply to you. A point that you keep ignoring.

You dont see god's power because it only exists in the minds silly enough to think it as true. /snip

AGAIN you have evidence to prove that your god's power if not some from of placebo effect. Nor do you have any physical evidence of his existance, mere fables nothing more.

As explained you wouldn't be able to recognise God's power if you saw it. You believe in a fairy tale with no evidence to prove your "theory" is not a placebo effect but claim others are silly for their beliefs. The intolerance just astounds.

That would hold true for neutral objects. However there is a reason why water is key for life, because it can induece charges which are denoted as delta positive and delta negative. Its got to do with the electronegativity of oxygen.

Next amino acids will not stay and do nothing, they can attract each other since they are charged, both negatively and positively i.e zwitter ion. Unlike forces attract, end of story.

Amino acids don't form spontaneously. Once you have your soup then throw it out the window to see if it still spontaneously forms proteins. Hint, when the claim is made of spontaneously forming proteins what is actually meant is that the correct conditions were provided for it to do so. Then the process is controlled to produce the correct proteins otherwise you have chaos.

[Swa]

You use entropy because you THINK you know something about it, and you use it out of its context. disorder and chaos in an ISOLATED system. So if i break a glass the idea of entropy stops that glass reforming on its own, BUT when you driving in the rain and the little rain drops start forming big rain drops on your windshield thats because there are other forces in play, in your case it would mean that these rain drops must stay in chaos state because entropy says so, but it doesnt it forms a pool and a ordered state of a puddle, of course if the system was isolated that puddle would not form. THAT is entropy. The number of states matter can be in, a wine glass low entropy it can only be a wine glass, shards of glass high entropy they can be arranged in any mannor.

That's because I do. It's not being used out of context and I even give an example of it being used this way. Thermodynamics refers to 3 systems. One is an isolated system which can only apply to the universe. The others are closed systems that exchange energy and open systems that exchange matter and energy. The second law states that work will only be done while heat is being exchanged until all parts of a system are in equilibrium resulting in maximum entropy. For the second law to not be violated and more work to be done energy needs to be converted, typically through a chemical reaction, that results in the initial system becoming more disorderly. The trend is thus for disorder to increase.

Your argument to this is that the earth is constantly receiving energy from the sun and is thus not an isolated system. Yes but two problems arise here. Indiscriminately adding heat only speeds up dominating processes of decay and a mechanism is required to convert energy and create complexity or order. Your example of raindrops not staying in a chaotic state is because of forces acting through a mechanism.

Does our sun NOT orbit the milky way galatic core? is earth the only thing orbiting the sun? is the moon not orbiting the earth? is gravity not the cause of all this ? is gravity the same on earth as it is on the moon?

There universal LAW proven.

In the observable universe. Even then there are anomalies they are trying to explain away by invoking dark matter. Not necessarily so universal then and not so proven.

Why because in your mind you a single living organism? and you assume that because you have a conscious. Take away DNA what you left with?

DNA is a component of life. Does not equate to DNA being life. You thus can't reduce it to DNA and say that's the common ancestor.

-Organic material has been shown to survive hundreds of million years, if there is no mechanism in play why would an animo acid as just dissolve?

Amino acids form in a chemical reaction involving nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon and energy. The formation of amino acids is not in question its easy to make an animo acid from scratch. Hell we can even make peptides :P, stanley miller's experiment showed that its possible to create animo acids from raw materials with systems that are present on the earth, that experiment has been validated over and over and over and is still there on display. Its also been upgraded many times.

-Amino acids will coagulate to form peptides in the correct conditions, as explained above they are zwitter ions.

- interesting even you say "themselves", personifying amino acids now are we? lol. Simple the amino acids did not achieve DNA when it first formed into peptides, it formed peptides by trial an error, just like how every snow flake and a different shape and its extremely complex, same thing. eventually dna wouldve formed from this.

- lol membranes formed second to DNA , it wasnt considered alive at the time, you cant suddendly go you had an amino acid then a peptide then dna and suddenly through in a eukaryotic cell :/ come now the metamorphasis is far more complex than that. Early life would have been non living in nature :P (can you ever) like a viron dna, couple of peptides and a casing. Early membranes were not biphosolipids like cells todays, they were basic self replicating fatty acid chains. These membranes have been created successfully in the lab and is an extension of miller's experiment.

- It did fall, see the fossils ? you assume again its a perfect straight line. Miller's experiment never allowed peptides to form and formed potent cyanide. However its purpose was to prove amino acids can form like proposed. It did that, it also provides you with your answer. Go outside and sample the garden dirt, your failed amino acids and peptides are there. Nature doesnt like to waste things :P

I've answered your questions you have yet to provide me with a single answer... because you dont have any outside your storybook :P

Oh yes one last thing, if jesus ascended and went to heaven howcome the rest of you christians when you die, you have to be buried and dont suddendly fly up into the sky in a holy violation of gravity? instead we have to put you in the ground where you decompose back into amino acids :P (yes the very same one theory of evolution exlaims to exist) and then plants eat that and grass grows on your grave. Hmmmm, guess it goes back to hindu principles, from death there is rebirth. Oh wait christianity says there is only one god, oh well

Organic material assuming this to mean living material is pretty degraded after only a few thousand years. Even when in an usable condition that's only because it was preserved. No mechanism needed for amino acids to decay, the natural mechanisms that operate only need energy to speed them up. We observe these dominating mechanisms in action.

Miller's experiment cooked the books. The early earth is now generally regarded as having a different composition (why the experiment was removed from a lot of textbooks). Some have gone on to show that the early atmosphere was actually unfavorable for the experiment to work.

Given the benefit of the doubt though all you have is a bunch of disorderly amino acids that start to degrade. Peptides can spontaneously form yes. Nobody that has done the research denies that. Indeed when peptides are synthesised this knowledge is invaluable because without separating the amino acids in the correct groups and sequences all you end up with is the same spontaneously formed goo. Don't get picky here, pronouns can refer to objects so nobody is personifying anything.

The question of when membranes formed is not at issue. The problem is that a membrane is required to protect the cell but without the cell there is no membrane. Either way you have a chicken or egg scenario here.

You refer to nature's "failures" in the ground. Even with the amino acids from life present they don't form new life, that concept has been debunked a century and a half ago when it was shown that even dead organisms don't form life again. Evolutionists couldn't accept it so not only do they postulate that but that the components for life emerged spontaneously.

Now assuming you have your experiment what have you actually done? You have proven that you need to create some elaborate setup to make the amino acids, then protect those amino acids and guide them to form all the correct peptides. You have not proven that nature did it but that the natural course of nature had to be altered to do it. You have proven that you need to create life!

Let's try another hypothetical here though. Assume you show that every step of your hypothesis can occur in nature. We're not just talking theoretically here because theoretically a whirlwind blowing around some sand can create a sandcastle but actually show that all steps can occur in nature without any setup. What now?

[RiaX]

Where are the graves of all historical figures then?

In tombs, even george washington as a burial site. Kings of past are still there. Yet the son god isnt, interesting.

Again you're assuming it doesn't contain facts.

List the facts in point form please.

You're the one that made a philosophical statement that eternity can't exist so WTF are you on about?

One statement to debunk a small essay.... skills

You're using perception of change to argue actual change. I never said perception of change doesn't exist but actual change doesn't

Does your anatomy not change when you lose a limb?

You can't respond with an answer to any criticisms of your story

Precise modern genetic research, they can tell exactly from which base in the dna helix and evolutionary process has taken place. If you knew the size of the human genome you would understand. Also if you plot the genetics from a base perspective you get a perfect evolutionary tree.

"Now if you say you spoke to god and try to change the world, we admit you to psychiatry." This suggests that there is something wrong with people who claim that. Now first of all you admit that insane is not a medical term. Secondly we've established that most people in mental institutions are not there because they are insane

Again Insane is not medical. They all there because they are mentally ill. If someone like moses or jesus came into the hospital, they would be admitted immediately. You have to assess the dangers these people with dementia have to themselves and to society, then assess to medicate pharmaceutically or therapeuticall via psychology. My arguement is falling apart because you dont understand the medical protocols in place for these things, and you asume you know more than me when you have zero experience and you are simply an "arm chair" expert. This is not for debate, unless you have MbcHB with FSC psych and over a year's worth of experience as HOD, dont comment any further since they the only people who would out rank me in this aspect, your lack of experience shows you have no idea what you talking about and im not interested in educating you in this field.

adaptation and assume this is proof of some imaginary primordial slime turning into a professor

Please provide a difference between adaptation and evolution with CONFIRM ACCEPTED REFERENCED DEFINITIONS.

Also your slime statement, show you lack the basics understanding of evolution, though I cant blame you the time frame is FAR beyond your perception. You assume there was organic sluge, and humans popped out like the T-1000 terminator (the liquid metal terminator? was it called a T-1000? lol i forgot).

How DNA works says nothing about how biological structures arose.

Madness. DNA dictates everything, without it where will be no biological structures. Please name a single biological structure without DNA ?

From a single zygote, you were formed. YES A SINGLE CELL. That cell divided and changed into specialised cells like cardiac cells ect ect, all by the instructions encoded in the DNA. I can go into centromeres and telomeres and activating of 3 triple base encoded gene structure, resulting in activation and deacvation of genetic codes, which on a small scale would be an adaptation. Multiple adaptations give rise to an evolutionary change. Now this is where epigenetics come in, which is a very hazy section per say and I will not get into a discussion about this with people who lack the grounding work. You can read up on it get a slight idea, sure but you never going to be abled to understand practically how that knowledge works and its not going to be in context.

It is because of the changes in the DNA more complex life and different life forms arise on earth so it has everything to do with how life arose.

I know the difference pretty well.

Tell me the differences

Nice dodging the question though.

Learning from you :P

77,000 articles proving we descended from a primordial slime. Shouldn't be difficult to cite just one then?

Still the fascination with church. And are you suggesting bias now? Should then discard everything done by scientists. Eish the double standard again.

Eish the ignorance again. There are 77 000 articles proving evolution. THere is more proof on evolution than there is for gravity. On that note to say "where is your primordial soup" is like saying "I dont believe in gravity because I cannot see the warping of space-time" .... sad really sad.

Yes bias is important and its ironed out in science by peer reviews and repeating of experiments by seperate facilities. I assume you have never been to a research symposium by making such statements. Oh why should we disregard every article in science? science doesnt gain a thing by saying evolution exists or doesnt exist. The church does for example.

Substitute the word creation with evolution there and that statement would equally apply to you. A point that you keep ignoring.

I did, and the evidence is there you ignore it.

I will repeat myself for the 4th time, to which you will ignore it and say creationism has evidence too and stop.

-Self replicating membranes
-Evolving of new structures within the cells and a definite change in the DNA with respect to resistnace
-Chemistry with respect to proteins
-Genetic similarities
-Perfect evolutionary tree when mapping species
- Merging of chromosomes in the genome resulting in a completely different species. Ie chimps have 48 chromosomes humans have 46, everything else is identical.

Next point have you done the experiment in school in physics, where the iron filings and the magnet and you get this complex beautiful design?

Surely god is doing that because that shape is too complex to be done by any other force isnt it? you probably assume evolution is by chance hence you dont understand the basic of the principle.

As explained you wouldn't be able to recognise God's power if you saw it. You believe in a fairy tale with no evidence to prove your "theory" is not a placebo effect but claim others are silly for their beliefs. The intolerance just astounds.

Show me god isnt a placebo effect. PROVE IT, god is a placebo nothing more until you can show it, its a fable. Fancy talk and a play of words will not earn you any respect in terms of intelligence. Like a dog chasing its tail.

Amino acids don't form spontaneously, Once you have your soup then throw it out the window to see if it still spontaneously forms proteins. Hint, when the claim is made of spontaneously forming proteins what is actually meant is that the correct conditions were provided for it to do so. Then the process is controlled to produce the correct proteins otherwise you have chaos.

They do, where you got this from? i've made proteins in the lab LOL, we dont mine them from the ground to make polypeptide chains lol. Amino acids are made and they are formed into peptides in the lab, when we research peptides in bioloigical tissue for example we create them just before we inject them, because we have to use a radioactive stains to track the peptides.

Sigh, you assume that evolution never got stagnet or slow, by the time the first peptide formed half of the time that is proposed for evolution was done. Secondly if you knew anything about peptides and amino acids I wouldnt have to explain this. Go read up on the chemistry of amino acids they have a very special property.

That's because I do. It's not being used out of context and I even give an example

It is and your example is wrong. Go back to the iron filing stated earlier, amino acids do the same thing

Your argument to this is that the earth is constantly receiving energy from the sun and is thus not an isolated system.

Its never an isolated system. My arguement was zwitter ions, something you dont even know exists

In the observable universe. Even then there are anomalies they are trying to explain away by invoking dark matter

No dont through in dark matter like you know something about it. Dark matter doesnt dispute gravity lol, it is a mathematical ideal that provides the rotation of objects around the galactic core to be at the same speed, in other words the force of gravity is unsual condsidering the theoretical mass of the milkway. It doesnt disprove law of gravity. Its trying to explain the gravitational force in the milky way, this is what happens when you dont understand and take snipets of information and pretend you an expert in the matter

[Swa]

In tombs, even george washington as a burial site. Kings of past are still there. Yet the son god isnt, interesting.

I thought we were talking of Mary. So who is it then, someone who is buried and we don't know exactly where or someone who rose from the dead and doesn't have a grave?

Does your anatomy not change when you lose a limb?

Please quote in context. I said perception of change is real but change itself doesn't have to be. Take as an example a booklet where each page has a slightly different picture. As you flip through the book you see a changing picture but in reality there isn't one and only a bunch of unchanging pictures.

Precise modern genetic research, they can tell exactly from which base in the dna helix and evolutionary process has taken place. If you knew the size of the human genome you would understand. Also if you plot the genetics from a base perspective you get a perfect evolutionary tree.

If I plot the genetics using DNA, ERVs, microRNAs, I get different evolutionary trees.

Again Insane is not medical. They all there because they are mentally ill. If someone like moses or jesus came into the hospital, they would be admitted immediately. You have to assess the dangers these people with dementia have to themselves and to society, then assess to medicate pharmaceutically or therapeuticall via psychology. My arguement is falling apart because you dont understand the medical protocols in place for these things, and you asume you know more than me when you have zero experience and you are simply an "arm chair" expert. This is not for debate, unless you have MbcHB with FSC psych and over a year's worth of experience as HOD, dont comment any further since they the only people who would out rank me in this aspect, your lack of experience shows you have no idea what you talking about and im not interested in educating you in this field.

Mentally ill is a subjective term. Is somebody mentally ill because they're having trouble coping out in the world? If somebody is mentally ill what does that entail? Does depression e.g. mean inability to discern fact from fiction? Does all mental disorders include seeing and hearing things that are not real?

You never had an argument to begin with here. You start from a preconceived idea that God isn't real so all these people must be experiencing hallucinations. You've already concluded a disease before determining one. I'm glad you're just doing research and not treating patients.

Please provide a difference between adaptation and evolution with CONFIRM ACCEPTED REFERENCED DEFINITIONS.

Also your slime statement, show you lack the basics understanding of evolution, though I cant blame you the time frame is FAR beyond your perception. You assume there was organic sluge, and humans popped out like the T-1000 terminator (the liquid metal terminator? was it called a T-1000? lol i forgot).

It's a metaphor. Hell even scientists refer to the primordial slime so I can't believe you're nitpicking here. I would like a definition for evolution as well as there are actually many. Adaptation on the other hand commonly means "the adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited to an environment." You see adaptation in the lab and assume that is proof of a primordial slime becoming man.

Madness. DNA dictates everything, without it where will be no biological structures. Please name a single biological structure without DNA ?

/snip

It is because of the changes in the DNA more complex life and different life forms arise on earth so it has everything to do with how life arose.

I never claimed DNA wasn't a necessary component for life. Remove proteins however and your DNA sits around and does nothing. Now again you have a genome sitting there in front of you, what does that say about how those biological structures first arose? Nothing.

Eish the ignorance again. There are 77 000 articles proving evolution. THere is more proof on evolution than there is for gravity. On that note to say "where is your primordial soup" is like saying "I dont believe in gravity because I cannot see the warping of space-time" .... sad really sad.

Yes bias is important and its ironed out in science by peer reviews and repeating of experiments by seperate facilities. I assume you have never been to a research symposium by making such statements. Oh why should we disregard every article in science? science doesnt gain a thing by saying evolution exists or doesnt exist. The church does for example.

Then it shouldn't be so hard to give just one, or is it that none of them prove evolution per se and only some aspects of it? We've already established that science doesn't work as the flatly ironed out sheet you claim so no need rehashing that again. We'll get to your preoccupation with the church at the end.

I did, and the evidence is there you ignore it.

I will repeat myself for the 4th time, to which you will ignore it and say creationism has evidence too and stop.

/snip

Because creation(ism) does. You keep ignoring it however and claim your interpretation of the evidence is the only one that matters.

you probably assume evolution is by chance hence you dont understand the basic of the principle.

Evolution isn't by chance? It was guided then?

Show me god isnt a placebo effect. PROVE IT, god is a placebo nothing more until you can show it, its a fable. Fancy talk and a play of words will not earn you any respect in terms of intelligence. Like a dog chasing its tail.

You obviously don't understand the concept. Show me an experiment to perform with a control. Until then your claim that it's placebo effect is unscientific. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it's undeterminable. Your type of thinking shows why science is in such a mess.

They do, where you got this from? i've made proteins in the lab LOL, we dont mine them from the ground to make polypeptide chains lol. Amino acids are made and they are formed into peptides in the lab, when we research peptides in bioloigical tissue for example we create them just before we inject them, because we have to use a radioactive stains to track the peptides.

Sigh, you assume that evolution never got stagnet or slow, by the time the first peptide formed half of the time that is proposed for evolution was done. Secondly if you knew anything about peptides and amino acids I wouldnt have to explain this. Go read up on the chemistry of amino acids they have a very special property.

And did you just throw some matter together? If so then nature would be doing the same right now and there's really no need for all these experiments to show how life may have arisen. No, you're using a process that was meticulously worked out and refined through thousands of hours in many labs. But you expect nature did it by accident.

I'm not assuming that evolution never slowed. The problem (for you) is that it probably did. Amino acids would degrade so require either sustained protection or a constant supply. That's where your cellular wall comes in that would have had to develop very quickly with the cell. As if that isn't unlikely enough it has to be capable of replication so it doesn't become extinct and needs a way of utilising a food source. After that it would need to continue evolving and replicating until there are at least a couple dozen organisms where the mechanism functions perfectly. If it slowed down in all likelihood it becomes extinct. Not only does it have an uphill battle it has a negative incline to climb.

It is and your example is wrong. Go back to the iron filing stated earlier, amino acids do the same thing

Amino acids don't just regularly form and even after they are formed they don't magically make the correct proteins. Even if you have 1 or stretching it perhaps 2 of the correct proteins in the same place they don't stay that way and also start to wither away.

Its never an isolated system. My arguement was zwitter ions, something you dont even know exists

Concept is familiar the name not. You assume them to regularly occur. Well the question isn't really about zwitterions but amino acids. Unless you have a mechanism whereby nature can create those you are relying on chance interactions. Nothing exceptional for a few amino acids scattered here and there but you need them all in the same place so there needs to be a constant supply. Otherwise you're relying on another chance event which is the case anyway for a self replicating organism to form.

You haven't answered the hypothetical question though

Let's try another hypothetical here though. Assume you show that every step of your hypothesis can occur in nature. We're not just talking theoretically here because theoretically a whirlwind blowing around some sand can create a sandcastle but actually show that all steps can occur in nature without any setup. What now?

[Unhappy438]

You know someone is flat out lying when they say there is evidence for creationism and no evidence for evolution.

[HapticSimian]

Still wallowing in incredulity and ignorance, Swa? Still...?

If I plot the genetics using DNA, ERVs, microRNAs, I get different evolutionary trees.

Non-issue:



Here's something for you to read...

Evolution isn't by chance? It was guided then?

FALSE DICHOTOMY ALERT! Just because something is non-random, it does not follow that it is guided. Evolution happens through the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators, to quote someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

[Techne]

FALSE DICHOTOMY ALERT! Just because something is non-random, it does not follow that it is guided. Evolution happens through the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators, to quote someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

What is "non-random survival" and "randomly varying replicators"? You are going to have to come up with a satisfactory definition for the concept of randomness. Good luck, there is no real agreed upon definition. One can perhaps make sense of the concept as an absence of ALL order or ALL predictability or the opposite of ANY order.

At best you can perhaps argue that varying replicators change in an indeterminate manner not completely devoid of order. The mere fact that we observe order instead of lack of order of course demands an explanation.