Evolution Disclaimer Supported

Your statement may be true, but it shows the seeds of its own destruction. According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization - just as I am saying because change is inevitable and will occur eventually.

You cannot axiomatically say that changing conditions are good or bad for a species. It will depend on the inherent adaptational capacity of the DNA mechanism, and the future course of events. If your specialization happens to be a good match for upcoming environmental changes, and these changes become permanent, you win the genetic jackpot. Otherwise, not. I fail to see where the "seeds of its own destruction" are buried in this argument.

Let me note also that you continue to fail to address the problem of how one can get from a bacteria with some 600 genes and some million DNA base pairs to a man with some 30,000 genes and some 3 billion DNA base pairs by destroying genetic information through 'natural selection'.

I'm tired of cycling on this point. You have not demonstrated that "information" is a useful measure of DNA base pairs. All the information in the world isn't worth snot to an earthworm, yet the earthworm is highly likely to outlive us complex humans.

It is no more nor less surprising that prokariotes can evolve into multicellular eukariotes, than it is that solitary ants can evolve into social ants. The jump from long continuous chains in prokariotes to a bundle of independent chromosomes which seem to be interchangable between cloroplasts, mitocondria, and germ cell carriers in eukariotes is equally unsurprising. Cooperatings cellular communities have harder problems to solve, of course they have a bigger pile of DNA. And none of these critterettes gives a hang about information theory. They have more things to do so they have more DNA. Whose surprised?

Creationists love to make the comparison between human art and the universe. I can name a couple of differences between the Sistine Chapel and the universe, even right off the top of my head and without having a picture of the Sistine Chapel in front of me!

I could probably name a few hundred also. However, the universe, by the judgement of scientists was indeed designed and the only alternative given by the atheists is the ridiculous infinite universe theory. This of course is Art Bell stuff, not science since no such thing has ever been observed and science is about observations. Complexity + specificity + purpose = Intellgent design in the Universe, in paintings, in life.

Gore 3000 give up and quit lying about me.

I did not lie about you, I proved you a liar. You could have used this post to show my statement to be wrong but instead you write a bunch of rhetoric and nonsense and do not answer any of the points I said had not been refuted. In the post you are responding to I said:

Correction - you wrote page after page of ATTEMPTED refutations of my posts. The reason you gave up was that you were unable to back up your claims when I challenged you to do so in Post# 988 where I challenged you to give proof of evolutionary transformations and disprove the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, you were also unable to respond to my challenge in Post# 989 to show how an egg laying animal would become a live bearing one, and you were unable to respond to my challenge in Post# 991 to show detailed proof contradicting Behe's statement in post #984 that the eye spot could not have evolved as Darwin had claimed.

Seems to me that it is I who should be saying that you are disregarding the strong proofs against evolution which have been presented to you and which you are unable to refute.

Now where did you refute those posts? They are totally unanswered. Where is the refutation to Post# 988, 989 and 991 which said:

Neither you nor any evolutionists has ever given proof that a single species has transformed itself into another more complex species. If I am wrong, let's see the proof. Come up with a real arguement that slams evolution can you do it?

There are many. The bacterial flagellum is one. The program by which a single cell at conception turns into a 100 trillion cells at the time of birth - with every single cell of the exactly proper kind in the exactly proper place is another. There are many more which have been scientifically proven, but these two should keep you busy for a while.
988 posted on 12/23/2002 7:07 AM PST by gore3000

'Gradual loss of egg laying' is more easily said than done. You must remember that the you need to provide nutrition to the developing organism throughout its development - as well as after the birth until it can feed itself. To say that all these changes can occur simultaneously is totally ludicrous and you have disproven nothing. Let's see an article describing how this change occurred in detail. Can you find any? I doubt it because this is one of the things evolutionists never speak of.
989 posted on 12/23/2002 7:14 AM PST by gore3000

And where did you debunk the flagellum besides in your own mind?

As to the eye spot, your article only says that because it happened more than once then therefore the eye spot could have occurred. It is not a refutation of the complex mechanism required for an eye spot.

BTW - a blog from Don Lindsay is proof of absolutely nothing. The guy cannot even give references for his nonsense.
991 posted on 12/23/2002 7:28 AM PST by gore3000

Evolution may change, it probably won't be exactly what it is today, but this is science, a proven institution, not faith. You confuse the two.

Evolution is not science. It is an ideology, a philosophy, but it is not science. There are no clear and distinct facts to support it. Not even the fossil evidence supports it due to the numerous gaps which have not grown smaller with the finding of new fossils. The Cambrian explosion shows that numerous phyla have no possible ancestors. DNA makes the process of evolution far to complicated for it to be even remotely possible in any kind of realistic time frame. The tight relationships between the different functions of an organism makes random evolution totally impossible. Science has already disproved evolution, what is left to do it to bury it.

Blue man to refute you I will use your own Logic. "You are wrong because I say you are." You are such a fool your refutations are almost all just reposts of what you said already you didnt repost my response to your idiocy because what i said proves your a liar.

Placemarker.

To prove your Lie here are my posts which refute your claims including a method by which the Flegellum can occur through gradual change. I am resorting to your stupidity and just going to repost this each time you say "NO IT DOESN'T" This way people can see your wrong. gore300 wrote "No it is not artificial, it means something. Matter of fact, lions and tigers are the same species they can interbreed. Problem evolutionists have is that they cannot prove their theory using science so they distort science to prove their theory. Yes it is! You aren't listening species means what ever scientists agree that it means it has no set meaning. I think your confusing Science with religion. Science changes as the facts as we know them change or are discovered to be different than what we believed before. Religion is unchanging and can't meet a changing world. Scientists do not distort science because science isn't an unchanging, unwavering, dogmatic idea. You are absolutely wrong here so just give up. I haven't came into this debate before but I will utterly prove that evolution occurs if you like, when I have time after work to explain this to you. I will start now with a proof that evolution is in action in the world today. Viruses and Bacterium that attack Humans are constantly under pressure to evolve due to Human endeavors to irradicate certain strains. The flu virus this year is not the flu virus from last year if it had not evolved there would be no reason for a different flu vaccination each year. Aids evolved from a virus that did not infect humans. Do you agree that God is not out in Southeast Asia creating new viruses each year? Do you agree that the changes in these viruses are an evolutionary process? These are simple examples and I will endeavor to continue to be very simple in my explanations to you. First give me one proof you have that evolution doesn't exist any small thing and try to explain to me why you think this disproves it. Do not write a small book on this forum because I wont read a bunch of religious panderings that are meaningless. Do not continue to repeat species is an absolute there are no absolutes in science. Absolutes are the refuge of the mentally blind. 862 posted on 12/19/2002 3:26 AM PST by Sentis You obviously refuse to answer my question about the evolution of the Flu virus. Doesn't matter I will try to answer in very very simple terms your question about irreducible complexity. To use your own brand of logic Irreducible Complexity does not exist. Much like quoting the second law of Thermodynamics as a proof against evolution (utter nonsense a Christian trying to use a scientific theory they don't understand to refute another scientific theory they don't understand) Irreducible Complexity is another straw the reliognists have grasped onto to save their faith from drowning in a sea of facts. Darwin was a brilliant man he came up with a sufficient theory to begin the quest for the proper theory of evolution but his theory is flawed hell even Einstien's theory of quantum mechanics is flawed. Science however trudges on replacing outdated theories such as Darwinian evolution with more updated theories. The religionists wish to attack Darwin they are welcome to. Their sites their attacks and their venom is directed at a theory over a hundred years old. That Darwinian evolution lasted this long as a standard theory is a monument to how well it was crafted. Today we know that evolution is much more than a simple slow change aided by competition and enviromental change. Todays cutting edge evolutionary theories span from Cellular drift, to cross species genetic exchange, even going so far as to suggest that the simple virus may have done more to create genetic exchange between species than any other factor. A virus is able to encode its dna into other organisms these viruses can leave it's dna signature in the genes of the infected organism. Viruses encoded in the Human dna sequence (Yes we have viruses encoded into our dna) can be active in the evolutionary process where they are able to cause replication failures(changes) leading to recombination of genetic structures. What this means in laymen terms is that sometimes Viruses change our genes. They cause humans, animals, plants to become something they are not. These slight genetic changes could radically change a species. Because the viruses affect sperm and eggs cells siblings may be changed genetical in the same way creating a unique species in one family where only siblings can mate and produce offspring. 890 posted on 12/19/2002 2:24 PM PST by Sentis gore3000 wrote "Of course if all these changes took place in a single individual that individual could not reproduce and it would all be for nothing so you need to have a whole group of individuals making all these changes at the same time. Of course all these changes, in the whole group had to take place in a single generation because if the change had been gradual you could not have them continue reproducing. This same problem is true with all the different modes of reproduction in nature of course, however with mammals it is far more obvious. Evolution has no answer to this important question which strikes at the heart of the theory because it destroys the whole idea that these differently reproducing species could have ever descended from each other. " I am going to try to explain this very simply and not use too many big words for you. Did you read the post I made about viruses and evolution? It completely negates what you just posted. Why did you even post it. When viruses attack sperm or egg cells and they survive to continue to split and make more eggs or sperm these viral changes can and will be passed to children. The siblings whose genetic material were changed will only be able to reproduce with their own siblings. These siblings will form the nucleus of the new species (I should say community or genetic pool as you try to distort the word species). Now I know that siblings breeding with each other isn't HOLY and that God would never let something like that happen (sarcasm off) Many mammals breed with their own relatives in fact it is common among mammals. You said evolution had no answer of course it didnt scientists working with viruses found the answer. Evolution is a theory not a scientist :) Again I give EVIDENCE where is your evidence? Where is your evidence that creationism is the correct theory show me your fossils show me your genetic data. Oh I forgot Creationism, is above the sort of evidence I provide. 929 posted on 12/20/2002 4:08 AM PST by Sentis How does the fact that certain species can mate with each other support creationism? It escapes me. Lions and Tigers can produce live offspring this does not mean they have reproductive viability these offsrping are "Mules" that means that they cannot reproduce. I have stated that species is meaningless you keep saying it isn't. You are wrong it is that simple species means nothing again I restate species is a term created by scientists as a useful place marker to distinguish one creature from another its that simple. Quit lying to people you well know that species is meaningless. I have already posted a refutation of Irreducible Complexity did you not read it. Of course you didn't remember the viral exchange of genetic information this completly negates Irreducible Complexity as it allows cross species genetic transfer. This allows different evolutionary lines to converge. You continue to use a tired argument from the 19th century that modern genetic research has disproved time and again. I will not continue to argue when I give a proof and you just say "NO IT ISN'T!!" you sound like a monty python skit. You have given no evidence that there is even irreducible Complexity you merely state look at a flegellum it can't occur in nature. Of course it can actually it isn't even irreducibly complex There is nothing in Nature that is irreducibly complex thats the Creationist lie. It is a lie a very big lie they tell everytime someone argues with them. Do you even know what Irreducible Complexity means or you like our friend f.christian who says the word like a mantra. Would you like me to give you the method that a flegellum can be created simply by natural selection even without viral intervention (Although viral intervention can speed the process along) A single cell organism breaks from its parent cell. The new cell is slightly different than the parent and has a celluar defect on one wall. This defect is a slight protrubance. when the cell moves this protrubrance acts as a rudder letting the cell move in a more guided way. Each generation the cell with the larger thinner protrubrance is more effective in moving about. After a time we have a cell with a long thin tail. At this point a cell again experiences a defect part of the cellular membrane that allows the cell to move attaches itself to the tail. When this cell moves the tail moves slightly with it meaning not only does the rudder act like a rudder it can now be used for small amounts of movement itself. This slow progression is so simple to understand I don't even see that your Irreducible Complexity can even exist. By the definition of Irreducible Complexity there could be absolutely no evolution because all change would be impossible we know for a fact that that is incorrect as changes such as I describe do occur. Do you have any evidence for your claims? I just showed how the flegellum can occur naturally do you want me to debunk the Irreducible Complexity of every single example that you can come up with. You say evolutionists never give you proof. I gave you proof and even made it simple enough that someone like you could understand. 925 posted on 12/20/2002 3:31 AM PST by Sentis [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] To: gore3000 gor3000 wrote"Vade sometimes does post some scientific looking stuff. However almost all of it is nonsense from fellow evolutionists who have no credentials at all or things which are so ridiculous that they are easily refuted such as his famous ring species. So no, the evolutionists here do not back up their claims that evolution is science." What credentials do you have? I mean if we discuss evolution and you claim to know its all hogwash what is your degree in? Religious dogma? Antiscientific mantras? Come on man give us the word. What are you a plant by the demoncrats to keep the foolish christians in the darkage? Hmm in my short time on this thread I have debunked every word you have spoken. YOu are wrong your creationist ramblings are wrong and all you can do is scream "NO ITS NOT!!" You give no proof of your assumptions you spout a word or two and say see that word proves evolution isn't true without understanding the meaning of the very words you shout. 926 posted on 12/20/2002 3:39 AM PST by Sentis

"More creationist BS. In another 20 years we'll be able to create life from scratch using amino acids. Where will the cretionist arguments go then?"

Ohhh, you said create life....

gore3000 wrote "I could probably name a few hundred also. However, the universe, by the judgement of scientists was indeed designed and the only alternative given by the atheists is the ridiculous infinite universe theory. This of course is Art Bell stuff, not science since no such thing has ever been observed and science is about observations. Complexity + specificity + purpose = Intellgent design in the Universe, in paintings, in life."

Wow what a major logical leap. The judgement of scientists is not that the universe is designed where do you get this stuff. Science never observed the universe being designed so i guess that falls into your Art Bell category. Sorry your wrong again.

Here are some questions you must answer if you do not answer these questions you are not seeking any type of scientific debate you merely want to spred your false beliefs.

How old is the Universe?

Who created the Universe?

Where did this creator come from?

Which is the higher Law God's law or the Laws of Nature (science)?

RE Post # 10- I like your view. After an extensive background in science I have never seen anything evolve. I HAVE SEEN MANY INSTANCES OF lateral change. There has to be an intelligent answer to the question of our being.

How many years or generations would it take all the monkeys in the world pecking on typewriters to produce the Encyclopedia Britanica??

Anyway, for what it's worth, you do understand what you're doing, right? I mean, you've been doing it so prolifically, I think you may have lost sight of your aim. In your lone quest to turn 150 years of evolutionary science upside down, all you constantly do is pick out a few anomalies and harp on them OVER and OVER.

If evolution is science, and a scientific theory is supposed to answer the questions posed by the scientific evidence, then evolution has to answer those questions. It cannot. In fact it never could. One of the things about evolution is that the theory is always behind the science. First it proposed melding of traits, that was disproved. Then it proposed a convoluted explanation of how mutations could be spread. This was made ludicrous by DNA since it required so many mutations, new genes, etc. for it to accomplish a simple change. So the evolutionists proposed duplication of whole genes. When it was found that genes needed a whole support system to make them even work, they ran out of answers.

There has never been a real how to evolution, just an 'it happens'. The mutations cannot be found, the species transforming into other species cannot be found. The only thing that can be found is a lot of tall stories. That's why evolutionists cannot answer scientific questions and need to insult those who ask them - because evolution is a joke.

By continuously zooming in on these things which you consider problems with evolution, can we assume you accept all the other tenets of the theory?

I do not accept any of it. What I show is that evolution is full of contradictions. To explain away one problem they need to contradict something else they have said. Take the problem of homology for example if features are similar, it is evolution, however, if similar features exist on species that could not have an ancestor/descendant relationship, then that is evolution too. If one can see gradual changes, then it is evolution, if there are no gradual changes then it is evolution also. The inconsistencies are all over.

And so it goes with Gore3K... He's almost outdone himself with this one: "According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization"

And the above is one of the many contradcitions I speak of. You cannot refute it because it is true so you try to laugh it off but contradictions in a theory render it null and void and are nothing to laugh at (except for opponents of it).

Here is an extended discussion of the theory by the author: Quantum Theory of Consciousness .

If the spiritual is denied the most important part of existence is missing.-tribune 7-

While I respect it, this is merely your opinion, and my happy existence flies in the face of it.

It's a little more than an opinion. There is much that is immaterial that makes life worth living. Art, philosophy, literature, mathematics, logic, are just a few of the things which the material world knows nothing of and which are beyond it. To deny that there is something beyond what we can see, touch and feel is ludicrous. It is those very things which make us human. Materialists not only deny their own humanity but also everything that is good in life in order to arrogantly proclaim themselves free from a superior being.

Science is no more "proven" an institution than faith.

Funny how materialism when challenged ends up in complete skepticism. Funny how those who say they know everything, when tested, have to admit they know nothing.

If you think I (or anyone else) is going to read that jumble you are absolutely wrong. I challenged you on three things and you have failed to respond to any of them. They can be found in Post#1063 . Repeating what I have already refuted in previous posts is meaningless. I gave you three challenges and they have gone unanswered, your insults show quite well that you are just a sore loser, nothing more.

Wow what a major logical leap. The judgement of scientists is not that the universe is designed where do you get this stuff.

Glad you asked, here's why scientists believe the Universe was designed. Here's why the materialists can only can only respond with the ridiculous theory that there must have been multiple universes:

Imagine that you are a cosmic explorer who has just stumbled into the control room of the whole universe. There you discover an elaborate "universe-creating-machine", with rows and rows of dials, each with many possible settings. As you investigate, you learn that each dial represents some particular parameter that has to be calibrated with a precise value in order to create a universe in which life can exist. One dial represents the possible settings for the strong nuclear force, one for the gravitationl constant, one for Planck's constant, one for the ratio of the neutron mass to the proton mass, one for the strength of electromagnetic attraction, and so on. As you, the cosmic explorer, examine the dials, you find that they could easily have been tuned to different settings. Moreover, you determine by careful calculations that if any of the dial settings were even slightly altered, life would cease to exist. Yet for some reason each dial is set at just the exact value necessary to keep the universe running. What do you infer about the origin of these finely tuned dial settings?
From: Stephen C. Meyer, "Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology.

when faced with proof you refuse to read it sorry your wrong again. I refuted everything in that post. Unfortunatly it takes pages and pages of words to do that if you are to lazy to read those words you are too lazy to put forth any theorums worth considering.

YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I ASKED YOU

are you ashamed of the answers you must give. Are you ashamed of what you must say to answer them?

gore3000 wrote "Repeating what I have already refuted in previous posts is meaningless."

But this is what you do everytime. You always refute by restating what we have already refuted.
answer My questions if you dare.

gore3000 wrote "Yet for some reason each dial is set at just the exact value necessary to keep the universe running. What do you infer about the origin of these finely tuned dial settings"

Others have busted you on this argument before but here goes(BTW this is another old wor out word games by the Crevos). YOUR WRONG oops that was one of your answers sorry. Depending on how you view the universe this is meaningless. If the universe is in a infinite cycle of contraction and expansion then sooner of later out of an infinite number of bang/crunch events the exact universe fit for life will emerge. If this is a one time universe then if the exact conditions for our type of lifeform wasn't present then some other type of life would have arose and a scientist from their world would be arguing against some fool who believed that the Universe began when the Great and Stellar Solar Bivalve excreted it in a fit of madness.

So your argument is flawed in it isn't an absolute proof of ID. ID is faulty becuase it is based on a premise that is unfounded and unprovable and as much as you would like to prove the existence of God the fact we exist in the Universe isnt that proof.

Oh BTW you never refuted those posts you ignored most of what I said then said "NO IT ISN'T" to the rest that isnt any refutation. ITs basically a refusal to answer and as such your refusal to answer my questions is an admission that your argument is faulty.