In the beginning . . . Adam walked with dinosaurs [Creationist Park]

Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 02 January 2005 | James Langton

[Lucky Dog]

Were one to come along, it would be examined.... There are no competing theories at the current time.

I suggest you refer to the following web site among others:

www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

There's nothing to overcome [with the entrophy principle]; this is a non-problem often raised by Creationists. All objects are subject to the second law. For living things, it only means that they do not extract all the energy out of their "food." (And that they cannot live on heat contrary to General Sternwood's comment on new-born spiders.)

Sir, the entrophy principle, simple stated, is that all systems (without intervention) progress from organization to chaos or from more complex to less complex, if you will. The principle is mathematically demonstrable and experimentally verifiable. Your logically unsupported assertion to contrary does not make the principle inapplicable. Consequently, it appears to me that your assertion that this principle does not apply to evolution (as a system) is specious.

Creationism is not a theory even in its ID guise...

I challenge you to logically defend this comment without referring to authoritarian support or the assertion of opinion as fact.

[PatrickHenry]

I challenge you to logically defend this comment [Creationism is not a theory even in its ID guise] without referring to authoritarian support or the assertion of opinion as fact.

Before you proceed much further, you really must acquaint yourself with the way these terms are used in science:
The scientific method.
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.

[balrog666]

You may have missed a number of posts on this thread where theory-of-evolution advocates have vociferously insisted that the theory is "fact.

The theory explains how, the natural history of our world is the fact.

There are respected authorities who posed intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution.

Correction: There are respected authorities who posed intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. See The Raelians

The current theory of evolution leaves some serious scientific questions unanswered (see post #468).

All answered now. Will that change your argument? Are you capable of learning?

[Hawkeye]

Mmm, science is not a democracy, but I can produce in evidence more scientists who think IAG espouse nonsense whose first name is Steve (over 500 including current Nobel Laureates) than is in your AIG accreditation list

Wonderful. They are entitled to believe their own interpretation. That still doesn't take anything away that there are plenty of respectable, real scientists, who do have peer-reviewed materials in respected scientific journals. I also would be careful to tout Nobel Laureates. ;-)

Having a belief isn't the same thing as that belief being logical.

I wholeheartedly agree!!

You didn't answer my specific point: If a mutation can remove information why can the same mutation in reverse not add information?

Although this is not the best analogy, this is similar to saying I have letters ABCDEFG. They've now mutated to AACDBFG. Where's the new information? This is dealt more thoroughly here.

While you are about it, if you believe in a young earth what is your explanation for the total absence of modern fossil forms other than in the topmost, youngest strata?

This is dealt with and fits the YEC framework.

As already stated, it appears that we will agree to disagree

[Lucky Dog]

Ah ... understanding comes to me. You are arguing against something neither I nor anyone else is advocating.

I suggest you refer to a number of posters [such as shubi] on this thread who maintained that the theory of evolution is nothing less than absolute fact.

If you agree with me that the theory of evolution is subject to refutation, then we are have no quarrel except, perhaps what might constitute refutation.

[balrog666]

Sir, the entropy principle, simple stated, is that all systems (without intervention) progress from organization to chaos or from more complex to less complex, if you will.

BUUUUZZZZZZZZ! Wrong again.

Go look up "closed system", "heat transfer", and "The Sun" and you just might learn why it doesn't apply to the Earth, the sustainment of life, or the process of evolution.

[newcats]

Funny, they have found remains of men that are older than 10,000 years. I wonder how that happened?

They were put there by Satan to test one's faith.

{sarcasm}

[Doctor Stochastic]

You've stated the second law incorrectly. By your incorrect statement, snowflakes could not form.

Theories have some requirements to be considered as such. This has been explained many times. Creationism has no falsification possibility. Anything can be explained by pointing out that "That's the way Zeus did it." ID is essentiallythe same as Creationism with Wotan replacing Zeus. Likewise, Creationism (and its various other incarnations) make no predictions that can distinguish between them and any other theory.

[Lucky Dog]

The theory explains how, the natural history of our world is the fact.

Forgive me if I question the logic of your comment. However, no theory can explain how a fact is a fact. it either is or it isn't. Theory can only speculate how (a potential causal mechanism) a fact came to exist.

All answered now. Will that change your argument?

Unfortunately, I still have not found your arguments (including the links) to be entirely conclusive. Therefore, the problems are not "all answered" in a convincing manner. Therefore, it appears we should agree to disagree.

Are you capable of learning?

It is absolutely amazing that so many advocates of a theory that apparently can never be experimentally verified [at least according the advocates posting on this thread] find it necessary to try to personally insult those who disagree with them.

[PatrickHenry]

Theory can only speculate how (a potential causal mechanism) a fact came to exist.

A theory (as science uses that term) does far more than that. Anyone can speculate. Every swami speculates. Every drunk in every bar speculates. Speculation is the cheapest coinage in the realm. Ah, but a theory ... it not only provides a cause-and-effect explanation of the observable, verifiable data, it also makes testable predictions.

[Lucky Dog]

You've stated the second law incorrectly. By your incorrect statement, snowflakes could not form.

You are correct in that I did not state the second law in its complete form. However, you are incorrect in other aspects. I ask you to explain how the following quote from your own cite is materially different from my statement:

There is a tendency in nature to proceed toward a state of greater molecular disorder. This one-sidedness of nature produces irreversible processes. (p. 347)

Theories have some requirements to be considered as such... falsification possibility.

Perhaps you would explain what are the falisifcation possibilities with the therory of evolution.

[Thatcherite]

Although this is not the best analogy, this is similar to saying I have letters ABCDEFG. They've now mutated to AACDBFG. Where's the new information? This is dealt more thoroughly here.

I see you didn't understand. Supposing I start with AACDEFG and mutate to ABCDEFG (equally possible to your example). In this case if your example redults in a loss of phenotype my example results in a gain of phenotype.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I suggest you refer to a number of posters [such as shubi] on this thread who maintained that the theory of evolution is nothing less than absolute fact.

And he's a Scientist and a Biology Instructor, for cripes sakes! Heck, if the science educators keep running around telling everyone Evolution is a Fact, then what are the children to believe? What about the kids?

[Thatcherite]

As already stated, it appears that we will agree to disagree

I guess we will, as long as you persist in believing in AIG stuff that has been falsified many times over. The YEC framework is a particularly abject example of non-science that simply makes a stack of unsupportable assertions whilst ignoring the multi-disciplinary crushing evidence against its model.

[Lucky Dog]

[Theory]...also makes testable predictions.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on the testible predictions on experimental data of the the theory of evolution, particularly those not subject to valid refutation or explanation by an alternate mechanism.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps you would explain what are the falisifcation possibilities with the therory of evolution.

This has been done many times here. Example: rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian strate. Another example: a cat giving birth to a bird would falsify evolutionary theory.

What would falsify Creationism? Just give the outlines of an experiment or observation.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

[Darwin’s] whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

—Antony Flew, former atheist, in an interview in Philosophia Christi (Winter 2004).

[Dimensio]

Again, I have NO idea who this "Antony Flew" is. I have NEVRE heard of him nor am I interested in him.

You've never heard of him? You replied to an article about him! The link that I brought up is to a posting that you made in reply to an article about Antony Flew. Moreover, when I corrected you on the claim that you made about Flew, you posted again and said "He rejects it". If you weren't talking about Flew then, just who were you talking about? Who did you mean when you said "he"? Why did you make a post that contained a specific claim about a specific person in reply to the original article if you weren't talking about Flew?

You need to stop lying. It only destroys your credibility because your lies are more obvious than Michael Moore's.

[Dimensio]

You can post as many lies as you like about me but the fact is that evolution is a farce and when I see a thread trying to suggest it has validity I'll post and laugh at idiots who take it seriously.

And I'll be there to remind everyone who is reading that you are a shameless liar who cannot be trusted.

Obviously you are an evolutionist who is a tad paranoid about some guy that I've never heard of nor do I have an interest in knowing about.

Still lying, I see. I mean, really, when I can link to three posts that you made about the man, it not only makes you look like a liar, it makes you look like an idiot.

[Lucky Dog]

Sorry, I have to physically depart the debate to attend to other duties. Perhaps we can continue it later.