[gore3000]

Let's see the evolutionists say again that there is no evidence against their theory.

[gore3000]

Bunp for one side.

[AntiGuv]

Does this appear on a webpage somewhere? I'd be interested in bookmarking that, if so. FWIW, evolutionary science has moved well beyond Darwin in much the same way that physics have moved well beyond Newton and astronomy has moved well beyond Copernicus and mathematics have moved well beyond Euclid. Disputing a particular statement of Darwin's does not challenge evolutionary science in those cases where evolutionary science has already modified that into an unrecognizable form.

[gore3000]

...and a bump for the other side.

[Lokibob]

bump for many hours of read.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Looks like no more Mr. Nice Guy.

[DWPittelli]

Indeed, you have shown that the simplest currently existing cell type has never formed itself spontaneously in a laboratory setting, and isn’t likely ever to do so. But if a self-replicating cell of a simpler type can exist (perhaps a lipid membrane enclosing a few protein or RNA fragments, 1/1000 the complexity of the simplest currently feasible cell, and the “laboratory,” instead of ~1 cubic meter is instead the world’s oceans (1,370,000,000 cubic kilometers, or 1,370,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters), and the “experiment,” instead of taking, say, 10 years, takes 4,000,000,000 years, then the process becomes 5.48E+29 (548,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times more likely to produce life.

Once that is done, you are essentially left with the claim that order can’t increase in a closed system (e.g., the whole watch or solar system model versus life metaphor). This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That law, however, only applies in a closed system. Since the Earth is not a closed system, but is constantly bathed in powerful light energy from the Sun, the 2nd Law does not apply. And indeed, it’s commonsensical that life would not exist without the Sun.

So you have proven little, except that religious fundamentalism is a continuing embarrassment to thinking conservatives.

[DWPittelli]

Let's see the evolutionists say again that there is no evidence against their theory.

What, pray tell, is your theory? That all existing species were made in their current form, that fossils are tricks the devil made to fool us, that evolution in historical times (e.g., wild grasses to wheat, wolves to many specialized forms of dogs, such as the ultra-sensitive-smelling bloodhound) is trivial and could never produce anything "truly" new even though great changes have been made in 5,000 years, and the earth is 1,000,000 times older than that? (Sort of like how the continents, although they move an inch a year, could never actually drift across the globe?)

Is there no evidence against such theories?

And what exactly does ad hominem comment on the racism of Darwin (a racism expressed by virtually every educated person in the first half of the 19th century) have to do with the accuracy of his scientific-historical theory?

[general_re]

HTML tip - red anchor text on a red background is a bad idea. You're welcome.

[BulletBrasDotNet]

Now I know where Al and Jesse came from.

[Texas_Jarhead]

FYI - The link for the Access Research Network in no good

[Hunble]

Dang gore3000, I have no reply to your original postings.

Keep up the great work, since you have been my absolute best source as an example of false science.

This one was absolutly fantastic, and I am loving it!

[capitan_refugio]

Thank you for your thought-provoking post. However, your premise mis-states the aim of the "scientific method."

The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.

A better understanding of the scientific method and scientific terminology might lead you to rethink your rash statements. A "theory" is a conceptual framework. A "hypothesis" is a working assumption. There are four basics steps in the scientific method:
(1) Observation and description of a process, phenomenon, or set of phenomena.
(2) Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the processes or phenomena.
(3) Use of the hypothesis to predict the existance of other processes, phenomena, or additional observable events.
(4) Tests of the predictions by other observors or experiments.

The so-called "theory of evolution" is actually a complex interaction of several theories, observations, descriptions, and phenomena. Naturally, the quality and quantity of the evidence is key in developing the conceptual framework. Unfortunately, the fossil record is much like a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Today, paleontologists are trying to piece together and describe the nature of the puzzle when they only have a few dozens of pieces. Even if they have solid assumptions about what the puzzle should resemble, they must, through the scientific process, test and re-test their hypotheses.

If the "present is the key to the past" (uniformitarianism), then a proper understanding of present-day biological and biochemical processes might provide some guidance to understanding how those processes might have operated in the past. I would say our absolute understanding of these processes is in its formative stage. I would expect changes in evolutionary theory to occur all the time.

"Evolution" is such a complex framework, there is no scientist who will claim that it is an undeniable fact. In fact, most geo- and bio-scientists expect new discoveries to modify and add to the existing knowledge base. The scientific knowledge of biological processes has grown by leaps and bounds over the past fifty years. The same could be said about the status of the earth sciences.

Finding out what "went wrong" to a scientist is as important as the development of the original hypothesis. The new data allows the modification and re-casting of the hypothesis for re-testing. That is what the scientific method is about.

The mere suggestion of an alternative or supplementary hypothesis does not, in and of itself, disprove the first hypothesis. Factually disproving a part of a complex framework does not in and of itself invalidate the entire framework.

It is not my intention to be part of a flame war online, as most of these creation science threads become. But, like any good debater, if you wish to engage in a debate, at least formulate a premise with fewer holes than a round of swiss cheese.

[Nateman]

Here is where you will find the substance. Your side lost this battle over a century ago. This is beyond old news, it's like arguing the earth is still flat or that the four elements are earth air fire and water. Deal with it.

[Eaker]

?????

Is this some kind of joke??

Just where did oil come from?? God just made a bunch of it and stuck it underground?? Then made cars out of thin air to burn it to screw up the planet?

This means the fossils discovered are what? More crap that he buried to confuse us?

Does God understand the term specious argument?? And no, I did not have time to quit my job, stay home and read the crap that you took so much time to assemble. I have a 3 pound dog. Ringling Brothers has a huge elephant. Basically the same thing comes out of their butts; however the quantity doesn’t alter the composition. BS is BS.

Stay safe; stay armed.

[Mensch]

Decisions, decisions, in which should I place my belief, the scientific method, or an intangible, magical, omnipotent being, on a cosmic ego trip?

[ApesForEvolution]

The amount of faith one needs to buy into evolution so far outweighs the amount of faith required to acknowledge one's Creator that it is unfathomable...

[A CA Guy]

Anything with Gore attached to it MUST be a piece of work! LOL

[scripter]

Index ping.

[Boomer Geezer]

Wow, thanks for the effort. Lucky I'm on vacation this coming week :)

... but that red-on-red ... woah! LOL

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

I am reluctant to post this question, as I am still smarting from a well deserved beat-down of epic proportions that I incurred only two days ago, but I will go against better judgement and do so at my own peril.

This question may be familiar to some of you who are more educated than I, which would be a lot of you, but I have not heard it addressed yet in this crowd, nor elsewhere.

If all human life descended from Adam and Eve, what, is the explanation for the multitude of distinct human races? Anglos distinctively pale, Africans distinctively dark, Asians and others with profoundly unique facial features, etc.

Would this not suggest that groups of humans have changed since the Dawn of Man, that they have become different than the Original Pair, and would this not be classified as "evoloving?"

LanaTurnerOverdrive signed up on 2002-07-02