> So - in your mind, geology, biology, and physics mean
> nothing. We should ignore what those fields of study
> teach us and rely on your opinion
> about...what?...software?
If ANYBODY is ignoring what geology, biology, and physics teach us, it is the Evolutionist. The examples of Evolutionist mispredictions, misinterpretations and outright hoaxes are LEGION.
What never ceases to amaze me is the Evolutionist response to any challenge to his worldview. Almost always, his response is hyperbole, ridicule, ad hominem, but SELDOM does he reply with LOGIC.
Very much like the Liberals and Leftists, interestingly.
Software Engineering is an applied science, as is Electrical Engineering. I was a circuit designer before I was a software engineer. We engineers don’t often invent theories, we apply them and see them working in the real world. We use LOGIC.
It is illogical, tautological, and even SILLY, to devise experiements applying a great deal intelligence and planning in order to prove that no intelligence is necessary to achieve the results of the experiment.
Yet this is what the Evolutionist believes.
If the Evolutionist model is true, we would be able to observe new speciation in nature virtually all the time, without FORCING it by intelligent experiment in the laboratory.
The Evolutionist model predicts new speciation.
However, what we see occuring in nature is NOT new speciation, but EXTINCTION.
Evolutionism tries to have it both ways. It says that the geologic record indicates there was a “Cambrian Explosion” of new life forms at a time when the earth was extremely hostile and was changing rapidly. Too rapidly for such speciation to occur in response to environmental pressures.
Consider. Fossils are created when living things are buried very suddenly in an anaerobic medium under pressure; mud slides, floods, volcanic eruptions, and other catastrophic phenomena. Yet at a time when the most fossils were produced, when the Earth was most violent and subject to sudden environmental change, the Evolutionist wants me to believe that the greatest amount of speciation took place.
At the same time, Evolutionism predicts that speciation takes many thousands of generations over many thousands or millions of years.
In order to address this conundrum, silly theories such as “hopeful monsters” and “puncutated equilibrium” are devised, but they are never proven to be able to occur with or without intelligent direction and purpose in a laboratory.
The Creationist model, on the other hand, predicts extinction as the environment changes, however slowly.
The Creationist model is more consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
Better minds than mine have explained these things, and you can find many intelligent people with multiple PhDs addressing these things on the creationist side at web sites like www.icr.org
I believe that the reason so many Evolutionists respond to Creationism with such vituperation and ridicule, is that it challenges their assumption that there is no God, that they are their own God, that they make their own rules.
The Theistic Evolutionist has a real problem if he is a Christian, because Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is MEANINGLESS if it does not address both SIN and DEATH. Death is the engine of the Evolutionist’s “natural selection”, nature red with blood in tooth and claw.
You can be an Evolutionist if you want.
But the Creationist model is every bit as valid for consideration, and by my reckoning, even more consistent with the evidence.
Ehm...you may be a great software engineer, but do you know how science works? Contrary to what you might believe, we don't sit around drinking coffee and thinking how best to undermine religion this day. We sit and consider the set of data we have. Build a hypothesis and a theory based on it. Make predictions. And then test those predictions. You know - the scientific method? Mind you - test those predictions. Not whether or not an intelligence exists.
That's how science works and that's how the evolutionary theory's built. Evolutionary theory is not some vast conspiracy to deny the existence of God. It is what it is because it's what the data so far have shown us. And yes, there are questions. Hard but nevertheless valid questions. Rest assured that if they are not addressed in due time, evolution will have to be modified or even discarded. It might be hard to grasp, but yes, scientists do discard ideas that don't work. Unlike some group of people.
And before accusing people of being illogical, do take a look at yourself. Here's some quotes from you.
However, as an engineer and information technologist, I know that randomness does not introduce new information, but rather corrupts existing information. No matter how many iterations you run, and you can run many, many billions in a few minutes, the result of randomness is, well, randomness, and when it is applied to existing information, the result is always deleterious.
a reply
> Actually, computerized evolutionary simulations were performed successfully and published in peer-reviewed journals a few decades ago.
your response
Yes, proving the point that no intelligence whatsoever is necessary to create life or even to drive “evolution”. :rolleyes:
Who's misdirecting here? Must everything be made into a debate of intelligence design? And yes, genetic algorithm can't produce Flight Simulator from a spreadsheet....yet. But then again, it is still in its infancy.
If you honestly believe what you’ve written, you are a fool.
Study geology, my friend.
Study how fossils clearly, indisputably show us that life has become progressively more complex over time.
Study stratigraphy.
Study superposition and radioisotope dating.
There is a H-U-G-E amount of scientific evidence supporting evolution, both in the biological sciences as well as other sciences where findings are consistent with evolution even though investigators set out to study completely different questions.
That’s one of the marks of an effective and relevant scientific theory - when seemingly unrelated scientific endeavors all point to the same solution. Such is the evidence supporting evolution.
And please, stop with the claptrap about thermodynamics. This isn’t a closed system. It’s a system with immense energy inputs. I presume your education taught you about that, didn’t it?
What a joke.