Evolutionists [stand up] EXPLAIN your ambiogenesis
that 'first cell that evolved via natural selection
that is the first evolution [in theory]

here is what i have so far on YOUR theory

quote#

''first cell mutated into protobionts
then prokaryotes
then eukaryotes'

so THEN what?
what dna [science] sequencing verified it happend
what was the change to what dna strand
what formed the cell membrane ?
what substances formed the membrane /
has science replicated the membrane ?
or evolved their first cell?
and where the amino acids , hormones , telimeres etc origonate
[of the first evolution?

needless to say i am only an ignorant 'creationist'

but im aware of my own ignorance

so how did this first cell evolve into the next evolution?

what was this first cells definative name [or species]
[or whatever you think your science [evolution] says the ambiogensis definatively is]

now i have no doudt spelled things wrong [but hey im one of thjose gullable creationists[we swallow everything [so i have been told]

so here i am [put it in writing ]

ps i know ambiogenisis is denied to be AN evolution BUT
how did this first cell mutate into being the first cell?

i know there is clever people here
so please explain your theory

[in explaining PLEASE treat me like a 5 year old,and be nice]
if you cant post facts
please refrain from insulting my belief[and my ignorance]

ps links are nice [but if you need a link to explain
think why you cant explain it without the link
paraphrase it for me
[to show you know the facts underpining YOUR theory

that you put above god][ok i know quite a few believers have fallen for a theory too,but you guys[and gals] can help explain it as well

please let the evolutionists [only] explain

one under god

^i know there is clever people here ^

You is right.
There is many clever people here.

one under god

^but im aware of my own ignorance^

We all are aware of your ignorance.

one under god: << PLEASE treat me like a 5 year old,and be nice >>

I don't think that this is an appropriate forum for 5 year-olds. Try here:

http://www.abc.net.au/children/bananas/

as you can see by the 3 replies so far
yet no attempt to explain

i guess its easier to believe a THEORY
than explain why

well i have used one right of reply

just to explain to you ; SEE they believe the theory
but cant even explain why

ha ha
your revealed

the link explains more about the poster than the topic

but feel free
you that believe a THEORY to explain it at anytime

what you afraid of
you cant explain it now so how you going to explain it to god then

ps the topic isnt god [i know]
you can reply your theory herenow or not]

the topic is evolution EXPLAINED
please see NO ONE HAS even tried

yet you dare tell the theory to your kids as science truth
just as you were decieved by your teachers
it is a childish theory that satisfies only children

please grow up

see your faith in the theory
is the same belief [faith]
we have in god

but we try to explain ours [that is the difference]
but this isnt about belief

[explain science fact
[please]
if you can

One under god, you may think all these things are unlikely, but how much more unlikely do you think it is that a creator capable of _creating_ these things spontaneously occurred.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that both creationists and evolutionists take a number of things on faith because they do not have explanations for all that they observe, the issue then becomes for me, whose faith is the least rational.

I'm afraid that yours is definitely the least rational because it doesn't align with the facts as we can ascertain them through the physical universe. That's why most Christians aren't creationists. Revelation is not the sole preserve of the Bible.

using up my 2 de post reply

graham [are not all irrationalities equal?
how can one absurdity be more or less absurd than any other?

surely both have equal absurdity [lol]
untill one proves its theory via science

only one claims the science method
BUT via deception of being a COMPLETE science
the other is stated to be via our belief [upfront]

so im irrational
yet fully able to confirm MY belief
[why i believe what i believe]

i studied genetics [a real science]
proved mendelic inheritors BY BREEDING and testing
but evolution ISNT a science
it is a theory

just look at the logic revealed by the facts so far
there is no attempt to explain to the topic
no attempt to explain the changes the first cell needs to do to become the first [or an evolved cell]

a priest will at least tell us of gensis

who predicted the dark deep [pre bang] 2 thousand years ago
then bang let there be light

then plants then fauna [as science later confirmed

here is my point
a child asks where do i come from?

the reply is either 'god'

or in time kid you will learn
about the THEORY of evolution

thats not where we came from [but its called science
cause that stops us thinking about it

thanks for allowing me to make a fool out of myself
,but who more foolish?
who more rational?

one who can explain
or one who cant?

UOG

Science itself evolves as we learn more and more, below is the latest hypothesis regarding the first cellular life. It is by no means the single answer - we may never know for sure. We can only evaluate evidence as we find it, which is why evolution is a very real and identifiable process:

"Scientists have identified the single chance encounter about 1.9 billion years ago to which almost all life on Earth owes its existence.

It saw an amoeba-like organism engulf a bacterium that had developed the power to use sunlight to break down water and liberate oxygen.

The bacterium was probably intended as prey but instead it became incorporated into its attacker’s body – turning it into the ancestor of every tree, flowering plant and seaweed on Earth. The encounter meant life on the planet could evolve from bacterial slime into the more complex forms we see today. “That single event transformed the evolution of life on Earth,” said Paul Falkowski, professor of biogeochemistry and bio-physics at Rutgers University in New Jersey. “The descendants of that tiny organism transformed our atmosphere, filling it with the oxygen needed for animals and, eventually, humans to evolve.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5114489.ece

UOG you are free to believe whatever you want, however that doesn't mean that everyone else should believe as you do when there is so much evidence to the contrary. As has been explained to you, Science is not about disproving god it is about understanding the natural world around us. From this research we have the very computer you are using to write your opinions on this website, that and every other piece of technology has come from research and testing and retesting ideas and theories.

Just because your bible doesn't mention it doesn't make computers imaginary.

PART 1 of 2
You are asking a question that cannot be answered in the way it was asked.

Perhaps you should be more specific. Start with what you mean by god. Which one, specifically.

Then specify what you mean by creation & what part what you mean by god plays in that process.
Then please tell me if you have a way of proving that god exists or do we assume that he/she/it does exist for the purposes of this discussion.

Then tell us a little about yourself. Age might help. Asking to be treated like a 5 year old doesn't you are one.

Now, do you want to discuss scientific naturalism (look it up on Google) in its own context or do you want to discuss your question in a metaphysical context (Google it).

I'll give some background to be fair. I'm an adult male born and educated in Australia and I went through the public school system. I have a bachelors degree.

I have considered many sides of the debate about the universe we live in and don't yet have a final answer. In fact I don't believe I ever will. Do you find that disturbing? I don't.

I *do* consider that biological evolutionary processes brought about by natural (and artificial) selection to be a viable proven theory and one that has been demonstrated by use of the scientific process to a sufficiently high degree of certainty to provide an explanation for the origin and development of life on our planet. That's my opinion and I am entitled to it. In fact I came to that understanding myself at the age of six.

What that means is that I don't see the need to put a supernatural god into the process to explain life. Not yet anyway. Perhaps you can convince me?

I look forward to somebody producing definitive evidence proving creationism, but please - no more references from documents that also tell of a flat earth, talking donkeys and so on.

Casting doubt on one theory does not automatically prove another one to be fact.

It's a bit like saying that elves exists because "who else would make Santa's toys?"

PART 2
Just yesterday, I was reading an article in Scientific American about how the most basic of life's chemicals can arrange themselves onto a 'scaffold' of clay in order to have a go at getting better at reproducing themselves. Interesting don't you think? (page 78, October).

These molecules can play a kind of game that can be described by maths. They had many many millions of years to play this game. You and I may well be the result of that game.

Count back approximately 2500 years and you'll find a bunch of guys called 'skeptikoi' (try Google again). At that time people worshipped many gods. Yet at that time they had already guessed there might be atoms. Since around 500 years ago the world rediscovered the classical age. We now call them skeptics. By the way, we have pretty good evidence for atoms. Maybe god made those?

By the way, today is world philosophy day. It derives from the Greek 'philos' & 'sophia' roughly meaning a love of wisdom.

I'm not a 'Darwinist' or 'Atheist' nor am I amoral or evil - but I *am* a critical thinker. So, when you're ready, let me know what your question actually *is* and what you mean by god. Try using a word processor first, it'll help with the spelling ;-)

Hope to hear from you soon!
[also - nice posts GrahamY & Fractelle]
Regards. PTP

only one serious response
raises the issue of ameba
an omnipresent little beast unchanged from the beginning]

go figure my brother
in researching your ameba i found only more about
how impossable evolution is

http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Creation/creation-not-evolution-4.htm

here is a quick quote

The common ameba is found in fresh water ponds,and ranges in size from an invisible microscopic animal to one that reaches a diameter of about half a millimeter,visible to the naked eye as a tiny white speck.
Each ameba is a little mass of gelatinous protoplasm,containing many granules and droplets.The protoplasm is covered with a delicate cell membrane.
In many ways this strange little creature bears witness to its Creator.(1)The Ameba is gifted with many Strange Abilities for a Microscopic Animal.
It can crawl;it can breathe(though it has no lungs or gills);
it can distinguish inert particles from the minute plants and animals on which it feeds;
it can thrust out its jelly-like body at any point to lay hold of its food;
it can digest and absorb its food;

though it has no feet,it crawls by projecting "pseudopods."

Such a strange little creature could not"just happen."One cannot fail to see in these abilities the Hand of the Creator.(2)

The Ameba moves around by means of "Ameboid movement," projecting a "pseudopod"(false foot)from any part of its body.Because of this it changes shape when it moves or engulfs food,

hence its name — "ameba" (derived from a Greek word meaning "change").

The "legs" of an ameba are temporary,and soon flow back into its body,when it stops moving or completes the ingestion of food particles.

This is totally different from the muscular movements of higher animals. Who designed it?Moreover, if the ameba is about to "swallow" an active organism,
the pseudopods are thrown out widely and do not touch or irritate the prey before it has been surrounded;but when the ameba is about to ingest a quiescent object,such as a single algal cell, the pseudopods surround the cell very closely.

Apparently the ameba can "think" even though it has no brain

so logus/logic came before the first cell?

Dear OUG,

PTP gave you a lucid post.

Why don't you reply to the questions he asks?

PART 3 & clarifications

UOG,
You did ask for some links. Try the Evolution v's Creationism Home Page.
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ORIGINS/origins.html

You also made the challenge regarding the impossibility of 'ambiogenesis' which I will assume you

mean that life spontaneously arose
. Does this invalidate biological evolution as being natural?

Also- wanted to ask. Are you saying that;

1. All life is too complex to be explained (the complexity argument) and was therefore designed - and

therefore.
2. A supernatural force or principle was the initiating and guiding agency? (an intelligent designer)

> If so, please explain the causal link. Why does this *necessarily* follow and have you discounted all

other reasonable explanations? Take a scientific, philosophical or theological view - your choice.

Also. So that we can all have a basis for discussion;

a. do you allow the possibility of extraterrestrial biological life?
a.1. sentient or not?
a.2. technologically advanced or not?

b. can you also state if we can allow for the possibility that coherent patterns (design) are an inherrent

property of matter? Perhaps an emergent property guided by maximal efficiency?

c. is the supernatural agent (alias god) a personal entity or an impersonal force?
and

d. if it could *resonably* be demonstrated that life could be self generating from basic matter *as

though* it was designed (but without showing the need for an actual designer) and that life could

evolve from basic forms to complex entities with sentience - would you abandon the need for a

supernatural force as designer?

Finally, what degree of proof would you require?

[greetings wobbles]

Also - looking forward to finding out just exactly what was the question again?

_PTP

I've got a basic knowledge of electronics. I understand the basics of how my TV at home works. I could probably explain enough to give someone who wanted to know a start on understanding.

If challenged to explain the most difficult technical issue about the workings of the TV to someone who believed that what we see in a TV was a lot of little people running around and some very clever staging I'd not be able to do so. I could refer that person to texts on electronics, I might provide some links to those who can explain it well but I'd not be able to explain it myself.

I've not dismantled my TV so I have no way to prove that my specific TV does not contain small people and a good props department.
My belief that the contents of my TV are based around electronics rather than small people is based on the opinions of "experts" and my own judgement about what is credible and what's not.

Regardless of how many people have believed in "little people" throughout history or how strongly some believe in them now my inability to explain the most detailed workings of my TV to someone who does not want to accept the idea of electronics does not mean that I should start believing that my TV is populated by little people.

R0bert

Dear one under god,

Science has been asking some of the same questions that you have asked. There are already some answers. An important experiment showed that amino acids could come from inorganic matter. The following is a bit about the experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

The Miller–Urey experiment (or Urey–Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Soviet scientist Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.
Re-analysis published in October 2008[6] of material from the experiments showed 22 amino acids rather than 5 were created in one apparatus.[7] In particular, the experiment that was thought to simulate a volcanic eruption was examined. These new results provide stronger evidence that biological molecules can form from simple reactants.

End of extract

However, the above neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. God could have arranged things so amino acids were produced in that fashion. The above neither proves nor disproves the Bible as the word of God. One does not have to take the Bible literally to believe in God. The creation story in Genesis is consistent with human scientific knowledge when Genesis was written.

The Bible has obvious contradictions internally and a literal interpretation is incompatible with our present knowledge. However, the creation story could be an allegory for the coming of life to earth, and the parables of Jesus and some of the other narratives could be a pattern for a desirable way to behave.

There are Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other scientists who believe in their sacred books as containing allegory and wisdom and also try to answer the questions you raise. However, literal belief is incompatible with common sense, scientific knowledge and logic.

Here is a statement issued by the American Society for Microbiology on the Scientific Basis for Evolution 2006. This kind of information from a respected, trusted and highly reputed scientific organization works for me. Using creationist sites to 'study' evolution will only give you a one sided view, can I suggest you try both sides of the argument.

http://www.asm.org/Media/index.asp?bid=45937

Knowledge of the microbial world is essential to understanding the evolution of life on Earth. The characteristics of microorganisms—small size, rapid reproduction, mobility, and facility in exchanging genetic information—allow them to adapt rapidly to environmental influences. In microbiology, the validity of evolutionary principles is supported by [1] readily demonstrated mutation, recombination and selection, which are the fundamental mechanisms of evolution; [2] comparisons based on genomic data that support a common ancestry of life; and [3] observable rates of genetic change and the extent of genomic diversity which indicate that divergence has occurred over a very long scale of geologic time, and testify to the great antiquity of life on Earth. Thus, microorganisms illustrate evolution in action, and microbiologists have been able to make use of the microbes’ evolutionary capacity in the development of life-improving and life-saving innovations in medicine, agriculture, and for the environment. By contrast, proposed alternatives to evolution, such as intelligent design and other forms of creationism, are not scientific, in part because they fail to provide a framework for useful, testable predictions. The use of the supposed "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum as an argument to endow nonscientific concepts with what appears to be legitimacy, is spurious and not based on fact. Evolution is not mere conjecture, but a conclusive discovery supported by a coherent body of integrated evidence. Overwhelmingly, the scientific community, regardless of religious belief, accepts evolution as central to an understanding of life and the life sciences. A fundamental aspect of the practice of science is to separate one’s personal beliefs from the pursuit of understanding of the natural world. It is important that society and future generations recognize the legitimacy of testable, verified, fact-based learning about the origins and diversity of life.

PART 4
Dear UOG, I have to thank you for this challenge and I don't believe I've done your question justice.

You asked;

"Evolutionists [stand up] EXPLAIN your ambiogenesis
that 'first cell that evolved via natural selection
that is the first evolution [in theory]"

OK - I'm going to be honest. I personally can't explain it to you.
I don't fully understand it myself. There are gaps in my knowledge.

* So I'm now going to consider my options. *

OPTION 'A' Reasoned Enquiry
> observe the world around me
> detect uncertainties and anomalies
> learn what others have theorised before
> learn more - consult those who I believe should know
> evaluate what they say by using my critical thinking skills
> seek views from opposing sides of the debate
> ask good questions - be open to the replies
> form an opinion based on understanding
> *test* that opinion on what I am able to percieve and what I am able to reason
> re-visit my opinion and be prepared to revise my beliefs if & when new information arises
[even if this contradicts my cherished beliefs]
> continue to refine my understanding - learn more

OPTION 'B' Inherited Faith
> observe the world around me
> detect uncertainties and anomalies
> learn what others have said before
> accept imposed explanations without questioning
> rely on untestable phenomena & unverifiable sources
> rely on theories based on supernatural forces
> substitute 'blind' faith for critical thinking
> disguise selected facts as the final and complete word
> reject evidence that I don't agree with
> never refine my beliefs over time....
> attack those who have opposing beliefs

'A' approximates the accumulation of reliable knowledge from uncertainty
'B' represents static belief and superstition to banish uncertainty

I'll be reading your links to see what I can learn.

Have a nice day.
_PTP

this is a chicken and egg argument or perhaps we could also ask who (or what) created the creator. i am reminded that every time a new fossil in the human family is found creationists demand that the "gap" between the new fossil sequences be filled and won't be satisfied until there is a complete unbroken chain to demonstrate human evolution. Science aint like that. Theories are changable as soon as better evidence comes along. Faith id set in concrete no matter what comes at it. They are different and irreconcilable.

Dear PTP,

What a marvellous post!

How on earth can any one of us top that?

Brilliant!

Dear OUG,

Quoting from my postings in another thread
on this topic ...

Most evolutionary changes occur too slowly to
be observed directly.

However, scientists in a number of fields have
found much evidence to support the theory
of evolution.

This evidence comes from five principal
sources: 1) fossils, 2) adaptations in
organisms, 3) geographic distribution of species
4) comparative studies of species and 5) embryology.

It's very understandable that many people don't
accept the theory of evolution because it conflicts
with their religious beliefs.

However, many people accept the basic principles of
evolution within the framework of their religious
beliefs.

Some Biblical scholars interpret the story of the Creation
as symbolic, rather than literal, account of the origin
of human beings and other living things.

They don't find this symbolic interpretation incompatible with
the findings of evolutionary biologists.

What I don't understand is - if you have a strong faith,
and no matter what anyone says you're not going to
listen anyway, - why do you insist on being provided with
proof for the theory of evolution?

What's the point to it all

A botanist’s perspective:

Take the eucalypts - Australia’s most dominant and well-known trees. There are more than 800 species.

Within any species you can see differences in the basic characters such as the flowers and leaves between individuals in the same population. Sometimes they are immediately obvious, sometimes you have to look a bit harder. It is easy to envisage how these different traits could advantage or disadvantage individuals in the game of survival and reproduction.

You’ll also see differences in many species over distance within their natural distribution, as they extend across the rainfall gradient for example. Leaf width and greenness versus greyness are classic differences of this sort. It is easy to envisage how these differences have resulted from the selection of traits from within the natural variation found within populations that work best for the trees in a given set of environmental circumstances.

And you’ll see whole populations that are somewhat different, which are often called different varieties or subspecies. It is easy to envisage how these have arisen from the previous step.

Then you’ll notice distinct species that are very similar and obviously related.

Whole groups of species can be seen to be related to other groups.

The larger groups clearly fit together as the genus Eucalyptus.

The relationships of Eucalyptus with other genera is such that its position within the family Myrtaceae is unambiguous.

The Myrtaceae clearly fits within the flowering plants.

The further back you go, the less clear the relationships are. But then you’d expect that to be the case. The same applies with all manner of things, where details are obliterated or hidden in the mists of time.

The evolutionary process is blindingly obvious within the eucalypts…..and across the spectrum of the Earth’s biota, for anyone who wants to see it.

Evolution stopped being a theory and moved into the realm of scientific fact many decades ago.

we may never know for sure. .
Posted by Fractelle,

Posted by PTP
You are asking a question that cannot be answered

[then goes on for 4 pages with off topic distraction[ie]

'quote';>>..what you mean by god. .
Then specify what you mean by creation ..<<

discuss scientific EVOLUTION [not theism]
.. I don't find ANYTHING disturbing.

then;>>..Perhaps you can convince me?..>>
thats not the question bro
its for you try to prove your theory is a science
,

PTP>>..PART 2
.. a 'scaffold' of clay in order to have a go at getting better at reproducing themselves. Interesting don't you think? ..<<

(no]
[its off topic]

>>..I *am* a critical thinker.So, when you're ready,let me know what your question actually *is* and what you mean by god. ..>>

[irrelivant to YOUR explaining YOUR theory]

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION
dont try to create distractions way from the answer [lol]

THEN

>>..PTP gave you a lucid post.

Why don't you reply to the questions he asks?..<<
Posted by Foxy,

[reply]he is supposed to be replying[answering] the topic
not distracting the debate to god/creation definition

but he has more of topic [clever] distraction;QUESTIONS
but seemingly little reply

>>..PART 3 &..I will assume you mean that life spontaneously arose..>>
[NO DO YOU?]
>>..Also- wanted to ask.Are you saying that;
life is too complex to be explained ..<<

[NO im asking you to explain YOUR belief in evolution
[and ambiogenesis]

ptp please explain the causal
ambiogenesis and other points raised at q1;for REPLY

>>>and YOUR other reasonable explanations?<<
Take a scientific, FACTUAL basis
based on the true sciences
you claim to underpin YOUR theory

[noting other questions are all still you
trying to reshape the question into my opinion about god]

explain YOUR theory pleas

Dear OUG,

I thought I had explained things to you in my last post.
Did you miss reading it?

I did tell you that most evolutionary changes occur too
slowly to be observed directly. However, scientists
have found much evidence to support the theory of
evolution from five principal sources which are:
1)fossils, 2) adaptations in organisms 3) geographic
distribution of species 4) comparative studies of the
various species and finally 5) embryology.

This is merely a brief listing, if you want more
information on each of these categories - you'd have
to google it yourself. I can't do it here for you
due to the word limit.

Others on this thread have also answered your questions,
but it seems to me that you're not interested in anything
any one of us has to say.

That's why I can see that any further discussion is a
waste of time.

In leaving this thread, I wish that:

"May your eyes continue
to see beautiful and significant things,
may you keep your spirit smiling,
and may your soul always dance to good music..."

Grace and Peace...

the topic is mute

NO ONE can scientificly[definativly]describe the begining
nor has science'evolved 'a single new species[via naTURAL SELECTION]

[thousands of generations of UNNATURAL accelorated fruitfly mutation has ONLY produced fruitflies][duh]

we have a theory called a science][it IS ONLY a theory ]
the truth is the debate is still going

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CXYc

if evolution can be proven PROOVE IT
links prove nothing
pictures ARNT SCIENCE

same with god creation[like it or not athiests are made and sustained by a godless theory[allowing them to blaspheme against god]

as no one is even trying,to explain their evolutionary theory in full
it is clear we dont have the full facts
[thus cant have a valid science]

and many clever people claiming to not even know the question?
and many are trying to rephrase the question into one they can reply

thing is i was taught evolution as a child
as many of you were
[i was told there is no god
,as many of you were as well

well the thing is science has not any replicatable answer

it hasnt made any mutation
hasnt made its own cell

i speculates[thus isnt science]

it dosnt reveal faulsifiable facts[thus isnt science]

we have art and philosophy
pretty pictures revealing the LOOKS LIKE
that looks like evolutionary progression [evolution]
but looks like isnt science

darwins finches were all finches
look like has decieved science many times

but science told us the sun turned arround the earth
[till one nutter created the true[verifyably true; science]
by proving it the other way round

; till then science was decieved
[as evolutionists may be now]

till they prove their theory fact
[ie get a man
using pure science
to breed [to evolve from an ape]

learned people can get decieved
limited knowledge is a dangerouse thing
a respondants 800 eucalypts[ARE ALL EUCALYPTS]

and so the numbers reveal
finches breed finches
fruitfly breeds fruit fly
apes breed apes
humans breed humans

science method has NEVER recorded nor evolved an evolution

thus is only the equivelent of a freshman
[to the science of over 2000 years that religion has]

OUG: :science method has NEVER recorded nor evolved an evolution"

Wrong again:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118759429/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Dear David F, could you please explain what you mean by literal belief. The reason I ask this is because I have a personal relationship with God the Holy Spirit, 3rd person in the "trinity" {mans word to explain Father,Son, and Holy Spirit] and his job is to glorify the son, to bring conviction never condenmnation to a lost and dying people,to teach and reveal the truth. and I know without him I can never see the wood for the trees as the bible is a very dry history book, but with him it becomes the living word for man. Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that procedes from the mouth of God . And I don't know what you mean by literal belief .

UOG...you obviously havent liked any of the replies here, why dont you scoot on over to some of the science forums and pose your question there?

I would highly recommend Richard Dawkins Science Forum as there are a lot of actual scientists there willing to debate your question. I wont give you a link as you don't seem to like them, but I'm sure you're capable of searching a little.

Personally I thought Foxy got it right when she said...

"What I don't understand is - if you have a strong faith,
and no matter what anyone says you're not going to
listen anyway, - why do you insist on being provided with
proof for the theory of evolution?

What's the point to it all"

I'm going to move along now, there is nothing else to see here.

Cheerio UOD and good luck in your quest, keep on demanding answers that make you feel comforted, may it be supremely fruitful for you....

..>>Wrong again:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118759429/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Posted by Bugsy..<<
dear bugsy
please explain again

ps you link needs a cookie[what proof in a locked link?]
[but this is a common teqnique of the deception debate]

[if there is no proof you can read
that isnt any real proof [right]

you cant explain your theory
neither can the link

[if i linked to these words via a 'link'
[how could you tell AS A SURITY]
they are the words i wrote]?
links can prove nothing
AT LEAST put a sample your proof on these pages please

thus i asked people to explain the theory HERE
,not on any link

as no one has tried to logiclly explain the root of the evolutionary tree , nor name one evolution scientificlly initiated and recorded

conveniantly your link allows you to not name this beastie

even in four posts by one poster only posting re his honours
[in an unmamed field of the arts?
from an un named institute ,and asking set up type questions to distract the question into a debait

wow thats explaining things[not]

so go ahead and be smug
no attempt to explain THE THEORY has been attempted here
we can thus presume it isnt ABLE to be faulsified

yes it is un known

so stop saying its science
its a theology#[in the realm of philosophy[belief]
not science

if science it be
please explain it here and now

thus
for if when you are asked then
and there to explain
you had some time to prepare your replie

look bro at least name the beastie
let me explain it away
[or allow it to be judged][here on these pages]

OUG, I can't help it if you can;t understand whatthey have written.

From the Link:

<<Origins, establishment and evolution of new polyploid species: Senecio cambrensis and S. eboracensis in the British Isles
RICHARD J. ABBOTT*1 and ANDREW J. LOWE

Two new polyploid species of Senecio have originated in the British Isles in recent times following hybridization between native S. vulgaris (2n = 40) and introduced S. squalidus (2n = 20). One of these is the allohexaploid S. cambrensis (2n = 60), the other is the recombinant tetraploid S. eboracensis (2n = 40). We review what is known about when and how each species originated, and their reproductive isolation from parents due to high selfing rates. We also review evidence that suggests S. cambrensis may have undergone rapid genome evolution since its origin, and comment on the risks of extinction to each species due to chance factors operating during the early establishment phase. The discovery of both species soon after their origin provides an unparalleled opportunity to examine two different but related forms of speciation following hybridization between the same parent species. Further detailed study of the ecology and genomics of S. cambrensis and S. eboracensis will help improve our understanding of the process of polyploid speciation in plants.>>

In very simple terms, these guys found a new species of weed that was formed from the hybridisation of two separate species of plants. These parental species of plants even had different numbers of chromosomes. These guys took a look at it's biology and ecology and found that they didn't or couldn't interbreed with either of the parental species, but could breed with other plants of it's own species. Thus, it is a new species and evolved very recently (S. squalidus was only introduced to Britain about 300 years ago). Speciation (or "macroevolution" to you) has been observed.

UOG

Many people here have provided thoughtful, considered responses to your questions regarding evolution.

Do you consider yourself so far above everyone else here that you do not have to consider what has been kindly provided to you?

As Foxy said, there doesn't seem any true purpose to your discussion thread if you aren't even interested in any of the answers.

There is a very easily observable example of evolution over a very short span of years, this is the ability of bacteria to develop immunity to anti-biotics.

Please read and consider:

"Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance:


Forty or fifty years ago, thanks to antibiotics, scientists thought medicine had all but eradicated infectious agents as a major health threat. Instead, the past two decades have seen an alarming resurgence of infectious diseases and the appearance of new ones.

Today, the AIDS virus, tuberculosis, malaria, diarrheal diseases and other infectious agents pose far greater hazards to human existence than any other creatures.

This upsurge of infectious disease is a problem we have unwittingly created for ourselves. The rise of rapid, frequent, and relatively cheap international travel allows diseases to leap from continent to continent. Inadequate sanitation and lack of clean drinking water are another factor. A third is the "antibiotic paradox" -- the overuse of the "miracle drugs" to the point that they lose their potency.

Whenever antibiotics wage war on microorganisms, a few of the enemy are able to survive the drug. Because microbes are always mutating, some random mutation eventually will protect against the drug. Antibiotics used only when needed and as directed usually overwhelm the bugs. Too much antibiotic use selects for more resistant mutants. When patients cut short the full course of drugs, the resistant strains have a chance to multiply and spread.

..... Every time antibiotics are used unnecessarily, they add to the selective pressure we are putting on microbes to evolve resistance. Then, when we really need antibiotics, they are less effective.

While drug companies race to develop new antibiotics that kill resistant microbes, scientists are urging patients and doctors to limit antibiotic use."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_03.html

bugsy
your wuote is talking about genetics
a valid science[not evolution]
the process of breeding the parental wild type
is genetics
[a thing darwin did with pigions cattle rabbits and mice
but it is no proof for evolution

wow the ancestor of the wheat is a weed
that returns to wild type when crossed

that via MANS deliberated selection [not natural selection]
has MICRO evolved within its species mean to be 'classified ' as different species[i did the same stuff with hemp in the 70's

we even got polyploids by using gout mnedicine
but it was all still cannabis[if thats evolution i been doing it for 40 years] maybe you could evolve your theory a tad?

meaning it didnt evolve by natural selection[duh]
nat selection is a theory of the evolving theory [A wannabe]science

even your egsample rejects and refutes the 'natural' from selection
[ie your egsample is the result of SELECTIVE breeding]

and the only science is the proven genetic inheritsance[not evolution]

my bro when you stand up you become exposed

selective breeding is not evolution on the macro level[its microEvolution at best][not nature and survival of the FITtest]
so another evolution theory exposed[survival of the selected?]

think why you need to grasp at straws my brother
[what has a weed to explain about biogenesis?[the BEGINNING}
clearly ANYweed is not the FIRST SEED

that is the topic

foxy quote..>>evolution from five principal sources which are:
1)fossils, 2) adaptations in organisms 3) geographic
distribution of species 4) comparative studies of the
various species and finally 5) embryology..>>

ok foxy the words have hypnotised you
but add nothing nor explain anything

which fossils PROVE what?
how were they VERIFIED

addaptions in organisms
WHICH ones [what 'addaptions']

geographic distribution again just a word[which geographic evolved which distribution[pre gondwanna or post?]

did darwins geo distrubution make the finches evolve to be NOT finches[or the turtles evolve not to be turtles
its all micro progression WITHIN a species]

budgie breeders have isolated budgies for 200 years[they have not evolved into parrots or doves]

Richie 10 wrote:

could you please explain what you mean by literal belief. The reason I ask this is because I have a personal relationship with God the Holy Spirit.

Dear Richie 10,

Literal belief refers to belief of some Christians and Jews that their Bible is true, in the literal sense, and is the word of God.

I don’t understand how one can have a personal relationship with imaginary or dead beings.

My personal relationships are restricted to the living. When my cousin Richard was a child he used to have an imaginary friend called John Pick. As he grew older John Pick disappeared. Some people continue to have relationships with imaginary beings as adults. As long as they are harmless and are able to function reasonably well they should be left alone.

The Bible contains legends that may be based on fact to some degree, wisdom, beauty, foolishness and superstition. It is neither a history book nor a scientific text.

david f.

My older brother tells me, I invented a character called Mr Rich Pussy whom owned a motor cycle factory. I don't recall this fabrication; but, suspect, or, at least, hope, I really didn't believe it; even as a three year old.

Richie 10,

The God of Islam is more distant than the Christian god(s). Morever, the Gods of the OT are more scarey than the God of NT. The relationships between gods and humanity seem variable over time and location from the days of Abraham, the father of three mother religions, let alone, the zillion sects.

AL-lah seems more tribal than Jesus, whom has been especially individualised in the Western world.

Ok OUG, a couple of points:

Apart from the fact that your grasp of English seems to be at best tenuous you have failed at understanding anything.
-the "egsample" given is NOT a result of artificial selection or deliberate breeding,
-it's a purely natural situation brought about by the mixing of introduced feral species
-it does not have anything to do with pigeons, rabbits, cattle or mice
-it definitely does not have anything to do with hemp
-it certainly DOES have something to do with what the definition of species is.
-you are the one who wandered off topic and started spouting off about evolution- and you are still doing it, don't complain about me correcting you off topic.
-I am definitely NOT your brother.

Quite frankly, since it appears that you don't understand the concepts or the meanings of the words involved I wonder why I bothered in the first place. I certainly won't bother in the future. Given the trepidation that Graham had over the previous creationist bullsh!t thread, and the others that have sprung up immediately after it ad nauseum I wonder why he even bothered allowing this one.

Realistically, I don't think you should bother with On the Origin of Species, or even a biology textbook, I know you won't like it. I really think you would be much better off with Horton Hears a Who, it's much more your style.

Oliver: << ...Rich Pussy whom owned a motor cycle factory >>

That sounds decidedly more interesting than the 'imaginary friends' we hear most about on OLO!

I could go possibly go with that...

Hi OUG,
At first, I didn’t want to post on your thread, because as Fractelle and Foxy said, what’s the point if you ignore discussion points, questions and links provided by others?
But since you posted on my thread I thought I’d be kind and make some time to return the favour. :+)

RObert, on Thursday, 20 November, explained better than I could have why I find it very hard to explain abiogenisis in detail. I have a basic understanding of abiogenesis and would refer them to the experts if people ask for details rather than torture them with my own explanations.

Links to videos and websites are totally necessary in discussions like this one not only because of the complexity of the topic but also because of limited words and posts available here.
There's so much stuff on this topic, and if you sincerely want to learn about biogenesis and evolution, you should go to the links provided by previous posters as well as go to your library.

Scientists are not in the same position as creationists, who can just refer to a Bible quote and say, ‘See? God did it all’ and that’s the end of their explanation.

Bugsy,
I think that OUG will really like the brand-new book aimed at junior High School Kids published by Kent Hovind. (US Young-earth creationist nut Dr Dino).
He’s the fraud who owns Dinosaur Adventure Land.
Last I heard, he got a prison sentence of 10 years..
He calls himself Dr but –not surprisingly- he holds ‘degrees’ from unaccredited institutions only.

Title
“Help! I'm Being Taught Evolution In My Earth Science Class!” by Dr Kent Hovind.
Description:
“Looking for help for your public-school earth science student? How about a resource with some practical steps for confronting evolution in the classroom? Written in an e-conversation format between a student and Dr. Hovind, this book is a fun, easy read that helps equip public-school students to defend the truth in a respectful manner. ”

http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/872/nm/Help_I_m_Being_Taught_Evolution_In_My_Earth_Science_Class_/category_id/85?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Campaign+Monitor&utm_content=399941597&utm_campaign=Two+NEW+books+by+Dr.+Kent+Hovind&utm_term=Help!+Order+No

I must've cut off the last letter of the link, here it is again:

http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/872/nm/Help_I_m_Being_Taught_Evolution_In_My_Earth_Science_Class_/category_id/85?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Campaign+Monitor&utm_content=399941597&utm_campaign=Two+NEW+books+by+Dr.+Kent+Hovind&utm_term=Help!+Order+Now

I'm almost tempted to order it out of curiosity.
I'd love to read the content out to you all, and then we can point and laugh.
Hey, don't get too excited, I said 'almost'.

OUG,
I think GrahamY hit the bulls eye first shot. Both atheist and theist camps/perspectives assume there was an initial something.Their differences lay in the qualities they allow that something.

With regards to Abiogenesis, some have already cited the Stanley Miller experiments which artificially created organic compounds, the building blocks of life.But there is also a different perspective: we often talk of life and non-life as if they were two distinct categories. It would be more accurate to see the two as different ends of a continuum with intermediary forms such as viruses & strange molecules.

Evolution is on a par with Newtons laws: everything that we have examined undergoes change [except some versions of ‘God’]. Darwinian evolution proposes that species change under the influence of environmental forces, there being no morally good, bad or predestined outcomes.

The occurrence of detrimental outcomes –species disappearing –individuals born deformed –the meek being disinherited , would seem to undermine ideas of a master plan directed by a master tradesman.

An excellent insight as to how evolution might work can be seen in some virtual worlds,where a few simple rules played out over many generations produces some very complex outcomes.
http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/october1970.html

the post limit forces me to respond only to selected bits
so i post it in full here
http://www.civilrights.org.nz/forum/index.php?topic=334.0
to reply to ptp
from your link [ptp]
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/jargon/jargonfile_f.html#fallacy

some interesting explanations of meaning
that reveals the teqniques used
in this debate
about evolution

the same teqniques played out here

Abiogenesis
*[FAQ]1.The development of life from non-living systems via natural mechanisms.
2.The early part of evolution(3) that the Second Law of Thermodynamics(2) shows is impossible.
3.Spontaneous generation,which Louis Pasteur showed to be impossible.
.
Ad_hominem_argument
1. An argument which relies upon denigrating the opponent and
then asserting or implying that such an unworthy arguer could not have a valid argument."See fallacy.
Agnostic
(n)1.Someone who defers belief or non-belief in a god until the evidence is in.
#Usually accompanied by the assertion that the evidence is not in.
Argument;from_Authority
(np)1.An argument of the form "the proposition X must be true
because Y,a recognized authority,says it is true,"as a substitute for actual evaluation of X...
...4.Absolute,incontrovertible evidence for the truth of X,provided Y is not the majority
Argument;from_Ignorance
1.An argument which arrogates omniscience to the arguer,
who claims that because he or she cannot postulate a mechanism for a phenomenon
that such mechanism can exist.#[or cannot be proven to egsist
[egsactly the point of these posts]
(np) 1. The argument that what one says is self-evidently, irrefutably true,and therefore one need provide no supporting evidence.
[or claims the supporting evidence but dosnt present it]
Often combined with Argumentum ad CAPSLOCK,and/or as the opening shot in a round of A rgumentum ad Assertion Repetitio ad Nauseam.
Argument;um_ad_Assertion Repetitio_ad_Nauseam
(np) 1. Argument premised on the basis that any assertion repeated often enough is,perforce,true.
This rhetorical mode is a frequent companion of Argumentum ad CAPSLOCK,or denigrations of correspondents.
There exists great variability in the frequency and timing of the repetitions.
Apatheist
(n)1.One who couldn't care less whether there is a god or not.
Falsifiable
;the theory is thus scientific,although falsified.

Biogenesis is still a mystery. There is much speculation, Hypotheses abound, but the bottom line is this:

WE DON'T KNOW.

It is possible we shall NEVER KNOW.

There are a number of false dichotomies implied in this thread.

(A) If we cannot find an explanation we must accept the God explanation

NOT SO. There are many things we don't know, many we may never know. We are limited beings living on one planet in a universe whose size we cannot grasp. We cannot even know whether our universe is unique or merely one among many.

Some ignorance is simply a fact of life. Our ignorance does not imply the existence of God.

(B) If God exists that proves the koran / bible / other "holy" book must be the "word" of God.

Again, NOT SO. It is quite possible that there is a God AND that all "holy" books are, at best, examples of imaginative writing combined with some historical facts or, at worst, compendia of claptrap.

I want to make this last point clear. Muslims, Christians, etc have ZERO EVIDENCE that their "holy writings" have anything to do with "God" assuming such an entity exists.

OUG (or anyone else), did my last post count for anything?

I mean, if you just get out there and observe the real world you wouldn’t be able to miss the relationships between all manner of organisms, or the differences in organisms of the same species. From those observations it is surely blindingly obvious how evolution happens.

Combine this with direct evidence of changing characteristics in just a few generations in organisms such as feral cats and cane toads, of exactly the sort that you’d expect to increase their chances of survival in the new environments that they have recently invaded.

Also….if it was all part of a master plan, then the master is one hell of a wasteful SOB. He can’t have much regard for life at all. The way he’s got it set up is just incredibly wasteful.

Again from the botanical perspective;

Every pollen grain is a living entity. And yet only one in a million or one in many millions gets to fulfill its purpose of fertilising an embryo.

Every seed is a living entity and yet the same applies – only one in many thousands gets to even germinate, and of those that do become seedlings, only one in many thousands reaches maturity.

Surely an intelligent creator could have come up with a system that is more efficient than that...and that demonstrates a higher regard for life.

Ludwig,

The evidence for evolution is, as you hint, overwhelming. There are only three reasons for rejecting evolution:

--Ideology induced blindness

--Sheer stupidity

--Ignorance.

Ignorance is curable. The other two are not. Learn to live with it

Yes and no Steven.

Yes the evidence for evolution is utterly overwhelming.

But no, I don’t think that ideology-induced blindness or sheer stupidity are incurable.

I don’t think we should for one moment just sit back and accept that a large portion of the populace suffers from these conditions and that a much more sensible outlook on life and our collective future isn’t eminently achievable.

ludwig
the topic is abgenesis
and evolution

eucalypts are a facinating thing
but you dont give any real detail about their evolution
nor about their abgenesis [name names]

i have great love for the strawberry gum ,and the bloodwod eucalypts
but ecalypts common ancestor is not named [nor its ancestoral line back to abgenesis

im sorry i dont see that its mention is any proof of abgenesis nor evolution

i would be only too pleased to respond to facts
that are on topic

but for now im more concerned about the opening your post provided for stevenmeyer not present facts either

as he rightfully says
'ignorance is curable'

we possably disagree about the cure
my cure is give me the facts
[facts about the topic] that explain the topic

but again going to stevenmeyer facts [his quote]
'learn to live with it'

ie the topic is please explain two concepts
with science fact
[clearly the 5 th grade level was aiming too high]

explain it with buzz words
[if thats all they gave you]

or links[able to be accessed [preferably giving a specific part on the link ]
im sick of reading the evolving fairy tale called science via links, because ''the proof is SOMWHERE on some page link''.

i still await some one to explain the subject to the topic
other comments are to be found at abouve link

OUG, it’s a bit rough implying that my posts were not on topic.

The point is that evolution is so obvious if you just open your eyes to the real world…and that evolutionary lineages understandably become progressively less obvious as you go further back in time. There is no reason in the world to think that the same rules didn’t apply way back in the dim distant past than what apply today in regard to the evolutionary process.

I guess that what you initially called ambiogenesis and are now calling abgenesis is actually abiogenesis (or autogenesis) – the development of living organisms from non-living matter.

Did autogenesis happen? Well..of course it did. What was the alternative….some creator going plonk, there’s an amoeba, pfft there’s a cactus, phlump, there’s a walrus! I mean, really…..of cooourse autogenesis happened.

But you could hardly call the development of life from the inorganic realm spontaneous. It would probably have been extremely slow and laborious, with many false starts and dead ends, with long periods of no progress and then rapid-advancement events…very much like the evolution of higher organisms.

It probably took a few million years for the basic organic compounds to organise themselves into replicatable DNA-type sequences in order to get the ball rolling. This would have happened within the primordial soup, along with a zillion other combinations that fell by the wayside. It would pretty much have been a matter of chance, within a set of conducive conditions, in just the same way as genetic combinations and mutations are today…which provide the variation that allows the evolutionary process to operate.

Why OUG does this concept meet with your utter rejection?

At what point do you think evolution is real? I mean, even you (not meaning to be downputting) can surely appreciate that some biological changes are taking place within subsequent generations. What about my point regarding feral cats and cane toads?

LUDWIC you said evolution is obvios[is this the measure of proof?]by genetic standards the rule is clear ecalypts breed ecalypts[thats it]

can you add that different species of ecalypts have been crossed?[if so what was its f1 like]did the f1 cross produce f2[what did they reveal?

im not being mean in asking evolution to explain itself[if its a science it should have law[reveal the laws[reveal the formula]and god forbid
if a true science
REPLICATE

thank you for finally revealing the[topic]name
but your surity[it MUST have happend[please prove that it did]the science says it cant[pasteur et al]

you know that 20 amino acids need to combine for life
that chromosones need a telimere to divide

that division is not recorded outside of a cell membrane[ok if it happend replicate it into a science,but that hasnt happend cause it cant]must have[or probably]isnt any real proof[isnt science[is speculation,not science]

it meets my objection
because it is sold as FACT
but it isnt even legally a science

at what point do i think evolution is real
the micro level[within a species]not into a new species[think it is claimed micro evolutions create a new species[well name that one LAST micro evolution[that divides the species][the ape has 99.999 percent of our genes[but the .0001 still adds up to 80 micro evolutions[not one]the difference

google up the physical difference betwen ape and man[huge numbers]in seconds[speaking in evolutionary time[yet apes 60 species?unchanged;are we related to all of em?

how come all apes look more related to each other than us?

[we share 60 percent of ouyr dna with a bannana,so it is more likely than not we came from a bannana[but clearly we didnt]

of course biological changes take place
but when we breed we get two pair chromosones
what one dont do[ie make mutated rna]the other does

[the defective thus has[usually ]little effect
or if bad effect the beast[mutant]dies

but half its offspring will be completly[genomicly]normal
[via mendelic ratio as proven by the science of genetics]

please reveal your claimed cane toad evo-polutions
and your feral cat evolutions
reveal a living intermediate mutant
cheers

OUG if you SERIOUSLY want to understand the science of evolutionary biology – which I doubt – here are two excellent popular books by the distinguished evolutionary biologist, Sean Carroll:

Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo

AND

The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution

Carroll discusses recent breakthroughs in our understanding of the mechanism of evolution at the molecular level. It should answer many of the questions you pose here.

Of course that's not the end of the story. It never is. Biology is currently a field in which new discoveries are being made all the time.

In the mean time would you care to offer one shred of proof that whatever "holy" text you follow has any connection with the creator of the universe - assuming for the sake of argument that the universe has a creator

OUG, thankyou for inquiring about Eucalyptus crosses (hybrids). They do indeed reveal a lot about evolutionary relationships.

Very distantly related species don’t produce hybrids. Hybrids range from rare individual sterile trees between distantly related species, to more common but still sterile trees between more closely related species, such as between various species of box and ironbark trees, to fertile hybrids between closely related species, such as the different ironbarks.

When hybrids are fertile, they back-cross with the parents and produce second (f2) and subsequent generation hybrids, often resulting in hybrid swarms or intergrade zones where individual trees range in characteristics from one parent to the other, sometimes across a distance of many kilometres.

Hybrid zones are very common, to the extent that it often takes a lot of work to determine which populations represent pure species or core taxa and which represent hybrids or intergrades. This is the situation with the ironbarks across north and central Queensland.

The nature of the hybrids directly reinforces the relationships between species that you would assume if you examined their gross morphology – that is: flowers, nuts, seeds, leaves, etc.

Autogenesis meets with your objection because it is sold as fact. Well, I’m not quite selling it as fact. I’m espousing it to be the only other option to the notion of creation by an intelligent being that can somehow just materialise such things out of the ether. As this latter option seems to be just far tooo ridiculous to even contemplate, it seems that autogenesis simply has to have happened.

Are you willing to come right out and espouse creation as fact…or do you think that there is some doubt and that autogenesis might just be possible?

Ahhh so you can see that evolution is real…within a species. Ok, very good. So then, how could it be real within a species, where you presumably can see it leading to different forms, varieties and subspecies…but not within closely related groups of species?

Love the bit about mutant ninja feral cat cane toads !! M’ mind’s a bogglin over that one! ({ : > o)

OUG
More re: "I know ambiogenisis is denied to be AN evolution BUT
how did this first cell mutate into being the first cell?"

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/lifeblob.html

nice try horus

any proof they had alcohol 'in the abgensis' times?
[pre the organic stuff
to ferment the sugars?

quote from
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2D61E3BF933A05753C1A966958260

..>>The two ingredients used in the experiment were an ester (a substance made from an alcohol and an organic acid) and amino adenosine.

Once a few molecules of AATE have been made from these ingredients, the AATE molecules can serve as templates for making replicas of themselves...<<

later it suggests abiogenesis couildnt have worked that way

..>>In the study of this prebiotic chemistry, Dr. Rebek said, a central issue "has been the question of what kind of molecule started things off."

He said scientists "have pretty much settled on nucleic acids, particularly RNA, because it's easy to visualize how RNA can act as a template for its own formation, just as it does in living systems even today."

RNA, or ribonucleic acid, carries the chemical instructions needed by living cells to synthesize the proteins on which all organisms are based...>>

thus any REAL proof would need to use those ingrediants

not booze as a catalist
creating a chemical reaction
[not biological life]

that comes along after abgenesis
also it lacks a living membrane

[making a chemical condom like skin
isnt making a biological [living]cell membrane]

ludwic[my belief isnt relitive

[im asking evolution[ists] to please explain THEIR theory]
not wanting to verify my own beliefs of god creating it all,
i accept that as a base fact

#[that god himself alone can 'prove' as he was the only one there]

but science is getting an idea
on how he MIGHT have done it
but is NO WHERE NEAR doing it
nor proving he did it this way or that

[i learned the numbers dont stack up for evolution]

then i studied god
[but i been studying evolution process for 30 years
[god about 10]

now can an expert please explain
why evolution is promoted as a science[when clearly it is not]

From another similar thread -
Splitting hairs about the minutae of evolution doesn't prove something else is correct because there is no other scientific theory to consider at this time.

Putting it all down to some cloud-hopping deity isn't a reasonable alternative.

The source that expouses Creationism as some sort of "science" also suggests that cattle mating in view of striped sticks will produce striped offspring (Genesis 30:37-39).

Reproduce that in a laboratory and you'll convince me!

It is not possible to convince such as one under God.
But evolution can be seen in the great number of Gods and cultures this planet has.
Each evolved differently just as every thing on the planet did because of different environments.
Each God we are told created the earth, and is the True God.
Some believe it is their whole life's work to impose their God on believers in other Gods.
Some want to use God as a reason to kill.
One Under God can not be convinced, so many who believe can not be convinced, by truth or evidence.
Surely more words are spoken about religion here than any other subject.
It may well be because the real world will no longer listen.

One under god.

Your call for definitive proof of what happenned billions of years ago for which there cannot be any fosil remains is ludicrous.

The technology to reproduce it does not exist yet, but with the continual advance of technology it is more the question of when rather than if.

As the vast 3 billion year patchwork is being put together all the pieces that are being found fit into the theory of evolution, the fact that there are pieces missing means that they have yet to be found, and not that the entire patchwork is wrong.

However, what has been found clearly does not fit into the creationist theories at all. Thus the theory of creation has been disproved.

OUG, ignorance is being unaware of the facts, being aware and not able to change your opinion to suit the facts is stupidity.

While I would like to explain as to a 5 yr old, most 5yr olds have the ability to reason which you lack.

3 further attemts to NOT explain

a quote from the wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science, pseudoscience and nonscience

Main articles: Cargo cult science, Fringe science, Junk science, Pseudoscience, and Scientific misconduct

Any established body of knowledge
which masquerades as science
in an attempt to claim a legitimacy
which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms is not science;

it is often known as fringe- or alternative science.

The most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement.

Another term, junk science, is often used to describe scientific theories or data which, while perhaps legitimate in themselves,
are believed to be mistakenly used to support an opposing position.

There is usually an element of political or ideological bias in the use of the term

and such is the case

#cleaRLY ATHIESTS GAIN COMFORT AND AID
FROM THINKING A BELIEF TO BE BASED ON SCIENCE
WHEN CLEARLY [BY ITS OWN MEASURE IT IS A FRAUD]

not one proof is being offered
that speaks for itself

[can you even see the company you keep?
who you deney to give this comfort?

who more ignorant
one who cant explain
or one who refuses to explain

Who is more ignorant? Actually, I think it's the one who refuses to even bother trying to understand.

OUG has realised that there is a part of the chain of events needed to have life without the intervention of a god which is not yet well understood, which is still in need of a lot more research to obtain a high level of confidence regarding which mechanisms produced it.

An area where few lay-men or women understand it themselves or if they do have the skills to explain it in terms which are meaningful to other people without spacific background knowledge.

OUG has embarked on a point scoring exercise where he thinks something has been gained by highlighting that issue whilst at the same time declaring the idea of evidence to support his own already falsified beliefs out of bounds.

The difference is that science will eventually be able to explain the mechanisms involved (or accept that the theory was wrong in the light of evidence and accept a theory which fits the evidence better). The "and then magic happened" crowd will still need to accept on faith beliefs which have been increasingly falsified by evidence.

R0bert

OUG

Ludwig wrote: “Are you willing to come right out and espouse creation as fact…or do you think that there is some doubt and that autogenesis might just be possible?”

Your answer:

“[im asking evolution[ists] to please explain THEIR theory]
not wanting to verify my own beliefs of god creating it all,
i accept that as a base fact”

You seem to be accepting creationism as fact without feeling as though you need to proffer any sort of supporting evidence whatsoever, and yet you are demanding not only evidence of, but absolute proof of autogenesis and evolution from it all the way up to the world’s present compliment of species.

I’ve got to say; that seems totally unbalanced. Others have made this point on this thread.

Do you think that autogenesis just might have been possible?

Ludwig: “how could it [evolution] be real within a species [which you accept as being the case], where you presumably can see it leading to different forms, varieties and subspecies…but not within closely related groups of species?”

You offered no response.

Feral cats have become much larger in just a few generations. Cane toads also have become much larger and longer-legged at the front line of their march across northern Australia, compared to those that have are now long-established in southern Queensland.

Presumably you accept these forms of evolution as they have occurred within species.

So why can’t you acknowledge that within a somewhat longer timeframe, these sorts of changes can result in new species…and that evolution of the sort that you now accept as occurring within a species has indeed occurred throughout the history of life on earth?

It makes no sense at all to accept it at an intraspecific level but not beyond that.

Ludwig,

I am not going to respond to OUG any further. There is NO evidence that would convince him of the reality of evolution. Debating with him serves no purpose.

However, you may be interested to know that speciation – the splitting of one species into multiple species – has been observed among cichlids in the great lakes of Africa. See for example:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7213/full/nature07285.html (Subscription required)

For a more popular account see:

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1998/3/depthscichlidfishes.cfm

The interesting thing is that many of the different cichlid populations could interbreed and produce viable offspring; but they don't. Over time the genetic distance between them will increase to the point where they cannot interbreed. THIS IS SPECIATION HAPPENING BEFORE OUR EYES.

I have learned something from this interchange. Thanks to oug. I had never heard of protobionts before and will learn more about them.

The term, evolutionist, is problematical. Creationism is an ideology based on biblical literalism. Evolutionist is a term invented by creationists which makes it sound as if accepting evolution was also founded on belief. It is as unreasonable to call one who accepts evolution an evolutionist as it is to call one who accepts gravity a gravitationist.

In this discussion the question of the origin of life has been discussed. That is really not part of evolution. Evolution is the extinction of species and the creation of new species. That is fact as shown by the fossil record, changes in bacterial resistance and other evidence. The theory concerns the mechanisms of creation of new species and extinction.

Some of the statements that have been made show ignorance of the evidence.

eg. oug stated:

"darwins finches were all finches"

However, the whole point was that new species of finches arose from the original finches. With the absence of birds to fill different niches in the environment on the island new species of finches evolved. They were no longer a single species.

Dear oug,

Please read about the finches. All dogs are one species. All finches aren't.

Under one god,

Junk science was used to describe the theories of intelligent design and creationism.

When you only believe what supports your cause it is called faith, and is not to be confused with reason.

You can continue muttering to yourself, but don't believe for a moment that anyone takes you seriously.

rashe,belly ,bugsy and robert
your response is here
http://www.civilrights.org.nz/forum/index.php?topic=334.0

david f
i have read two sites trying to find about your statement[not proof]
QUOTE..>>Please read about the finches. All dogs are one species. All finches aren't..<<

and as far as i can tell ALL FINCHES ARE

so please prove your speculation that all finches are not

http://darwiniana.org/darfinch1.htm
http://www.biology-online.org/2/11_natural_selection.htm

shadow minestar
junk science allready includes intelligent design[thus rules out man doing it ,thus rules out science PROVING it. or alians doing it

but i note you offer no proof either

your faith is in a thoery
mine based on my own verfied facts
[those who dont do their own research decerve the spin they get]

this post is about verifying
if proof is out there [clearly it isnt]

thus evolution isnt a science
[please explain what you mean by

QUOTE;
..>>..When you only believe what supports your cause
it is called faith,
and is not to be confused with reason..<<

NOR FACT ,
and thus is the stage the abiogensis/evolution by natural [spontanious [natural] evolving]
[noting your muttering by not giving your proof]
im only asking it be presented here and now

dear lidwig

,changes within a species isnt changing into a new species

i have said mutations occur
[calling them micro evolutions]
as for the micro MUTATION being proof of macro evolution
that step is beyond the facts

call mutation what it is
it is not evolution
[its simple mutation ,within the species]

re your dogs, toads getting bigger

[search for hybred vigiour]
then please note that the proportion ratio [a verified science]
that covers the beaks mutations of darwin finches as well as your dogs [cats, toads or whatever]

my words cant validate your theory

even IF you proved creation fraud ,and it hasnt
[that still cant prove yours is true]

using my quotes hardly helps you prove your theory

Stevenlmeyer

“I am not going to respond to OUG any further”

I think that there is more value in this thread than just the debate with OUG. I’m learning stuff here. Cichlid speciation is fascinating.

I don’t expect OUG to change his tune. But I’m still interested in discussing stuff with him/her, as s/he has such a different value set to mine…and such a different writing style!

That’s one of the good things about this forum….encountering posters like this.

Although I must admit, I’m becoming a little suspicious of the writing style. When posters’ names get repeatedly misspelt it makes me wonder whether it might not all be a put-on. So far I’ve been called ludwig, LUDWIC and lidwig (:>|

Stick with it Steven.

"[EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY PLEASE]"

I really wanna abuse you for that.

It’s obvious we are the most intelligent creatures on earth. We are curious and clever creatures and this has helped us make great inroads into investigating and gathering data about ourselves and our world. Through observation and experimentation, we’ve developed incredible methods of inquiry. We have minutely recorded those observations and generously passed that knowledge on down over time, always combining it with a very human striving for empirical evidence and measurable truths.

The search for empirical and measurable evidence to test a previous generation’s hypotheses is not waning, if anything it is speeding up. Our awareness of the future’s scrutiny of our observations and calculations has made us, to our credit, deliberately careful with our hypothesis. We're searching for our beginnings, we're getting right down to the nano levels and realistically it shouldn't be too long before we know the truth about the where, why and how of our existence. Personally I don't think its an intelligent designer.

We can all see the good and the bad of human behavior. If you think a supernatural being is guiding all this, don’t you think its odd that nothing in reality fits the picture that is being presented by religionists and their books? Does it occur to you that actual hard evidence of a supreme being is sadly lacking in any form whatsoever?

Conversations and arguments about the evidence of our beginnings and the evidence of creationism are going on all over the world facilitated by the internet. My observations are that evidence-belief comes down to whether or not you have been subjected to a childhood that presented you with religious dogma as empirical truth. If you have a religious background it follows that you will have great difficulty with the very real concept of empirical and measurable truths, because you will have been taught not to question anything, or demand proof about creation but to have blind faith in what your religion has demanded you believe.

OUG I would be interested to know why you appear to be so sneeringly confident with what you've called verified facts?

OUG,
"[but i been studying evolution process for 30 years"
As someone who's been studying evolution for 30 years, have you found out the difference between breeds and species yet?

celiva
quote..>>have you found out the difference between breeds and species yet?..<<here is a link[to help you prove the[your theory]

im not sure you have heard of them
but they help make clear whatever point your trying to make

http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatSpecies.htm

trikkerdee
quote
>>..My observations are that evidence-belief comes down to whether or not you have been subjected to a childhood that presented you with religious dogma as empirical truth..<<
in my case my father informed me the bible was nonsense[claimed to have read it 3 times]so,I,never read the bible till mid to late thirties

hope it invalidates your theory
but what are facts right?
[quote]>>..If you have a religious background it follows that you will have great difficulty with the very real concept of empirical and measurable truths..<<end quote

that is a presumption[fear or bias]
i would ask you to prove[or recant]

[quote]..>>because you will have been taught not to question anything,..<<funny how when we asume

i was taught question EVERYTHING
strike 2?
..>>or demand proof about creation but to have blind faith in what your religion has demanded you believe..<<

as stated i have no blind faith in anything
i do not have any'religion'i just know god is real
how i know is none of your buisness[and not the topic of the debate]

>>..OUG I would be interested to know why you appear to be so sneeringly confident with what you've called verified facts?..>>

the tone of your posts suggests not to tell you a thing
pearls before SS wine comes to mind

please try to restrict comment and provide FACT to the topic?

StG sorry i didnt want to cause collateral damage

[the biggest sin is to decieve ANYONE of their honest held beliefs in the higherPOWER][that is spiritually speaking]

but feel free[to comment][i didnt mean to be excluding anyone]
at times i have felt believers help me
but god is doing just fine
giving more than i asked[as usual]

[i really just didnt want it to become a slanging match]
just the facts to topic[is what that small voice suggested]

Hey Folks,

He's a troll!

Don't feed him!

OUG

“changes within a species isnt changing into a new species”

Changes within a species are of just the same nature as changes that lead to the appearance of new species within a genus or within a group of closely related species. You just simply can’t counter that. You can’t provide anything whatsoever to indicate that it isn’t so, because…well... it is so….absolutely, end of story.

I’m really tempted to say, game, set and match, because in admitting that you can see ”micro evolutions” within a species, you have admitted that you ARE an ‘evolutionist’, at the most important level. That is, at the level that is happening around us right now.

Why on earth would you think that what is happening now is any different to what has always happened throughout the history of life on earth? Yes I asked you that question last time, and there was no response…..because… well, there is no answer.

.
Foxy

Can you corroborate your assertion.

oug wrote:
"i have read two sites trying to find about your statement[not proof]
QUOTE..>>Please read about the finches. All dogs are one species. All finches aren't..<<"

I googled Darwin’s finches and got
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches which tells about Darwin’s finches and lists the genera and species.
Species

Genus Geospiza
Large Cactus-finch, Geospiza conirostris
Sharp-beaked Ground-finch, Geospiza difficilis
Vampire Finch, Geospiza difficilis septentrionalis
Medium Ground-finch, Geospiza fortis
Small Ground-finch, Geospiza fuliginosa
Large Ground-finch, Geospiza magnirostris
Darwin's Large Ground-finch, Geospiza magnirostris magnirostris - possibly extinct (1957?)
Common Cactus-finch, Geospiza scandens
Genus Camarhynchus
Vegetarian Finch, Camarhynchus crassirostris - sometimes separated in Platyspiza
Large Tree-finch, Camarhynchus psittacula
Medium Tree-finch, Camarhynchus pauper
Small Tree-finch, Camarhynchus parvulus
Woodpecker Finch, Camarhynchus pallidus - sometimes separated in Cactospiza
Mangrove Finch, Camarhynchus heliobates
Genus Certhidea
Warbler Finch, Certhidea olivacea
Genus Pinaroloxias
Cocos Island Finch, Pinaroloxias inornata

There are twelve different finch species in Australia. They are described and pictured on pages 308-313 of “The Slater Field Guide to Australian Birds.”

OUG,

“Nice try Horus” …does that mean I get four points?

I disagree with your take on the Masleko Strizhak experiment.The fact that the experiment was made under conditions that don’t mirror current Earth conditions means little. The Earths biosphere has changed many times over the eons. The outcome proves one of my original points: living and non-living are not two –black & white – states; there are intermediately forms that cannot be easily classified into either category.

Now to attempt a conversion!

There are a couple of issues raised in earlier postings which you haven’t adequately answered. How do you explain the following -anomalies- in gods creation :
1) Superfluous features: limbs or organs that are more bother than benefit.
-The human coccyx
-The human appendix
Are they the result of an error in the blue print?

2) Failed models
-Homo Erectus
-Homo Neanderthal
Were they practise runs?

3) Factory seconds
- Two headed cats, six legged sheep.
What happened – are these the models that come off the production line on a Friday?

All of the above can be adequately answered by evolution, but seem difficult to answer under a belief system which holds the responsible party is an all knowing, all powerful , all loving god.

And just by way of an aside: how can you be sure there is only ONE god?
How do you know there isn’t a ruddy great pantheon of gods out there?

Progress score - Horus leads 6 point to 0!

dear ludwig
checkout link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phylogenetic_tree.svg

note the righthand branch
eucaryota[ this seems the theory]
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

many interesting points there as well

IF all finches come from the animal'line'[supposedly]
please reveal the finch chart
that could link to this root

or rather fill in the graps to your finches

then we will discuss more

HORUS
>>..How do you explain the following-anomalies-in gods creation:

1) Superfluous features:limbs or organs that are more bother than benefit.
-The human coccyx
-The human appendix
Are they the result of an error in the blue print?..<<

impresuming you mean'tail bone?
it has its role in early embryo development

google up what happens when it gets cut off the embryo
[no legs]
[the limb buds fail to form]

its organised from the grey streak ,
as study will reveal
but its pure genetics[not evolution]

..>>2)Failed models
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j03_1/j03_1_152-153.pdf
-Homo Erectus
-Homo Neanderthal
Were they practise runs?...<<

[NO fraud]
check out question15
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:igMSW56WBdgJ:www.123facts.com/quiz_results.php%3Fquizid%3D2585+ww2+homoerectus+fossils+disapeared&hl=en&gl=au&strip=1

[such are the high stakes in this game]

http://www.weaverresearch.org/evol_table.htm

..>>3) Factory seconds..<<
extracted from
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Mutant
''well-known mutation in fruit flies causes the flies to have legs in place of antennas.[5]
An American aquarium even displays what it calls a "double mutant" snake that is both albino and has two heads[6],

though calling this a double mutation is a misnomer as the two-headed condition is a developmental abnormality and not a genetic mutation.
[thus not even close to an evolution]

Heracles and the Lernaean Hydra by Gustave Moreau: The Hydra is perhaps the best known mythological multi-headed animal, also popularised in many fantasy settings....

Similarly striking human mutations also occur occasionally...<<

please note its basis[your points?] is biology , physiology ,morpholgy , anthropology,etc[not evolution]

by the way

we cant serve two masters[ie thus ;one god]

FOXEY

aint it funny that im called the troll by a non respondant

typical

you cant provide PROOF

so call names

cheers eh
no hard feelings
only hard facts

OUG,

God does not exist,
Mary was not a virgin,
Jesus did not rise again, (only seen by his groupies)

Please prove these statements incorrect.

cheers eh
no hard feelings
only hard facts

ShadowMinister,quote..>>OUG,God does not exist..<<
if that is meant to be a provaction[it isnt]

NO_ONE can prove anything to a closed heart
nor does/can/will god

[jesus realised the miracles only kept god belief
as long as the miracles keep comming]

[but we see the wrong miracles]

[how amasing life is,YET[all of mans brain power for many milenia
has NOT MADE ITS'OWN'LIFE-forms

only able to modify a few breeds via domestication

you have had many god moments
but you didnt realise them
;you had been entertaining
[or being taught]
by angels unaware

[or god];that still quiet voice of love/life
and good conscious and consciencesness
[light/love/logic/life]

god sustains all life to live
as well as our very universe.

that you call luck[or fate]
you think god who gives all life their living
is revealed
to those who seek to know him not?

you wont even face the facts [deceptions inherant in any theory

let alone digest links
[nor search for the unseen,unseeable force living right in your own heart[too]

you cant see wind,or radiation or many light specrums
and much other such as upper and lower sound vibrations
but your heart fears to see the god,as YOU THINK him wrongly to be

but here is some help to the hopeless
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-31-2004-57312.asp

http://www.evidencebible.com/pdf/29_Proverbs_1_to_15.pdf

try page 4
crumbs off my table of plenty
[i myself didnt read them till half an hour ago]
they arnt my message

but by the same token neither is any holy text
[cleary because it is written by named men]

just as the flat earth isnt written in the bible[but presumed from all[every eye shall see him[re jesus 2 de comming]

[which aint going to happen,till we at least give peace to the peacemaker]]and our father]

the next thought is israel
[means wars with god][as the quaran would reveal it was written by the jinn,attatching the deceptions of those daring to call themselves ALlone as gods own

[who is not a child of god?
[who not given to live from god?
[what land not gods land?

look your troll[off topic]
is only because YOU cant explain god
[Nor evolution]

uog said:
[i really just didnt want it to become a slanging match]
just the facts to topic[is what that small voice suggested]

The sources you are using to illustrate your points are far from credible. Scripture based scientific research is not a rational position, all it does is create a theory that confirms your mythological beliefs - but without actual evidence. Didn't you say you were taught to question everything?

Dear Ludwig,

Can I prove my assertions about
OUG being a troll?
Well, as you pointed out - how
many different spellings of your
name did he do? Is he unhinged
or what?

Take a look at all of his posts,
and replies to people who genuinely
wanted to engage in a dialogue
with him.

Take a look at all the lucid explanations
that he's been given and totally rejected.

How can there be any discussion or debate
with a closed mind? -

He does not answer
any questions, ignores the proof that he
is given - - does
not want to hear answers that don't
meet with his beliefs- and so forth...

It's an exercise in futility to say
the least. What's the point to it all?
except that he's having fun at your expense.
So what does that say about all of you, who are
playing his game according to his rules.

There's no give and take, as far as I
can see - that in my book that makes him
as CJ would say:
a 'troll!'
Not worth bothering with.
I regret I got involved.
I entered this thread in good faith.
I thought the man was genuine.
I thought he wanted a genuine discussion.
I was wrong.
I won't be making that mistake in the future!

As the saying goes,
"A closed mind is like a closed book,
Just a block of wood!"

Or, as Judge Judy says,

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!"

Well said Foxy, thanks for clarifying what I was already thinking, I'm going to take your advice and leave it alone now.

Yeah, Foxy,
I think that OTUG (one troll under god) does display some trollish behaviour.
Not sure if I could define "troll", but whether it's a troll or not, I don't think I'll bother with him/her/it anymore in the future.

I still enjoyed and learned from the replies by the 'evolutionists' though.

Why 'creationists' were discouraged to reply is funny- me thinks OTUG needs all the help he/she/it can get.

Real science is just science,
otherwise it's pseudoscience.

UOG - you say 'real' science only, OK
you also kept god off the table OK

How do I explain 'my' 'theory'
of evolution?

With science.

How I would explain evo. to a child?
by example as follows [next post]

--

You challenge;
Why I believe evolution
Because it is science.

But you also challenge me to explain
do I believe it like god?
That is not science. God is off topic.

That discussion has no jurisdiction in science.
This is long established.

So, why believe (that it works)?
Because I can rely on it to reveal the material world.
Progressively.

Therefore it is not false belief.
Within the domain of science.

Theories are deceptive when they're
hatched in secret and kept in closed circles.
Not in an open scientific forum.

You bring Creation Science and Intelligent design
on topic and link to the literature in your arguments.
Is this literature science?

Who gets to determine what is science?
Science or Creationists?

To answer this with sufficient authority.
We would require. A suitably qualified forum.
An arena of world's best practice.

As a recent example. I refer to;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

and

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

"ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of
which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID,
employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been
refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

My rational belief is not blind because
I can examine the exact way in which the judgement
Was derived.

As is done in science.

>>> continued

This is my example as promised,
If it seems silly, remember;
Part of UOG’s challenge.
It is in two parts.

UOG says
"did darwins geo distrubution make the finches evolve to be NOT finches[or the
turtles evolve not to be turtles its all micro progression WITHIN a species]

budgie breeders have isolated budgies for 200 years [they have not evolved into
parrots or doves]"

OK
so we have shades of grey (gumtrees)
but what about the black or white?

T-rex 'n chicken are very very different after all
(if they meet, don't bet on the bird ;-)

* if a T-rex could become a chicken through
evolution, what of ID? *

The fiveyear old arrives...

"yesterday we learned evolutun in class
that a dinosaur can turn into a bird'
I don't understand!

[-kids nowdays! remember,
I'm going to have to simplify...]

I could see how that kind of darwinist thinking
could really throw you for a loop!
make you believe all kind of things
like my great.gt.....grandady was a monkey!

* How could nature alone do that like magic!
- doesn't make sense! those teeth!

> well young man,
fossils have been found
(pressed in like your smiley stamp)
in old rocks that show birds came from
one type of dinosaur ...
- don't believe it?
[are you a scientist or a creationist?]

> Let's take a guess
for this to be true
- T-rex & chick would have to have a
great.g.g.g.grandaddy together...
> maybe they are cousins!

* 'But chickens weren't around then!
* How did the T-rex change to a small chiken?

Well that’s a long story but he didn’t actually change
he disappeared and his cousins took over...
they were the chickens great grandaddys

There was a race on between all the cousins
to see who was the best...

wow! what happened?

> Maybe T-rex and chickn's great
grandaddy were side by side in a race for survival
(think of trains, Thomas the Tank v's
the little engine who could)

>>continued

but but
* Where is the half T-rex / chicken?
Well, you see that's not what scientists
said happened, others said that to confuse people.

> can we watch the race?

- lets go outside & look at a tree
- their racing is like small branches
sharing the same main big branch...
side by side branches
can divide at different times
without telling one another you know...
or a branch could stop suddenly
or make it all the way to the top!!

> SO I'm waiting!
- how did the T-rex DISAPPEAR?

* well they're racing along and...
* what's that!! a big rock from space!
* Many scientists think this
made smaller animals faster after that
* some have other ideas
* so they are looking for clues like detectives
and playing show and tell

- but how do they know what happened back then?
* well if a big rock hits earth really hard
you get a lot of dust - and that
dust is still around underground
but that's also a long story
wait till youre older...

* But about the T-rex, hes so scary!
> Well, they found some blubber from a Trex.
And using their looking glasses
to look this goop from the T-rex & the bird
guess what?

T-rex & chickens may be cousins after all...
it may be true!

* But that's also a very long story
and it'll have to wait for when you're older

-- gee thanks for the magic story,
now can I tell you what I want for Christmas?
a dinosaur versus chicken book!
And a looking glass.

stuff and nonsense db8r
you give a location[link] TO LAWYERS
who no doudt would like to remove god from their courts

its rules appear to be

QUOTE>>Who gets to determine what is science?.<<

no doudt the moderator
following the forum guidlines
see below

QUOTE>>>Science or Creationists?

To answer this with sufficient authority.
We would require. A suitably qualified forum.
An arena of world's best practice...<<

at what rebuttinmg?[or censoring?]
my EXPERIENCE is censoring
and banning then via court to jail

Its not very scientific[but such are the COURT-forum_rules[right]?

SO HERE ARE THE balanced?,unbiased?FORUM RULES[of the lawless]

QUOTE:..>>"ID is not science.

We find that ID fails on three different levels,
any one of which is sufficient
to preclude
a determination
that ID is science.

They are:
(1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science

by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation;

2) the argument of irreducible complexity,
central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's;

and(3)ID's negative attacks on evolution have been
refuted by the scientific community."
(page 64)..>>

great
page 64
WHICH LINK?[2de]

PS i replied PTP
at this link
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2317

i will let you get back to your
'fair and balanced'cop/show/law and order ;LEGAL tv watching judges

PART 1
This has been an entertaining thread.

Of course he's a troll.
If he wanted a real discussion with people who have knowledge of where our current research into biogenesis stands, he would have posted this on a forum where these people are likely to be.

It seems the comments about OUG's intractability of his position are correct - he has yet to write anything here that sufficiently rebutts the conclusions decades of scientific effort have led to, The constant biblical quotes and poor writing style makes it also difficult to read.

He does seem to have one valid point though: Many of the ideas that science (actually, the media and uninformed laymen) states as demonstrated fact are not. They have workable theories backed up by supportive evidence, that eventually (it is hoped) is backed up even further by understanding the mechanisms at play. I for one am sick of seeing theories elevated to the level of fact by people who misunderstand the nature of scientific enquiry - the rest of the world buys into that and opens scientific knowledge up to attacks from people who already Have All The Answers.
The FACT is that scientists do not Have All The Answers, nor do they claim to. What they do have is a working method of finding answers in a fairly sensible way: ask fair questions and take the answers to increase our understanding, even if that means reworking the old ideas.

PART 2
OUG has asked that we explain how science has come to a supposed conclusion about the origins of life.

Sorry to have to break this to you, but they havent come to any particular conclusions yet, and they may never.

Judging by your references, your understanding of certain elements of argument and discussion, you are not as undereducated as you make out. Utilising the powers of logical argument only where it suits however instantly reduces your point of view to being one of the Closed Minds (or worse one with an unstated agenda). As I should now justify, this isnt being written to attempt a 'conversion' of such a mind, but to point out there is no case to answer to. If OUG thinks that Science has proclaimed it is a Fact that Life started out in This Particular Way, well they are wrong - and even if at some stage in the future a scenario of biogenesis obtains enough supporting evidence to be considered as Fact, it will still be only a statement of the most likely of possibles. Even if we do create life from scratch in a test-tube using only conditions available in primordia, it will not disprove the idea that life was created instead of spontaneously organising itself.

A debate where only one side has any real evidence to offer up, and the other side refuses to follow logic or impartial standards of said evidence.... ISNT A DEBATE AT ALL.

The only reason I can divine for OUG's post is to attempt to legitimise 'debate' or 'controversy' on subjects that further Creationist's agendas. Its possible he/she doesnt even know they are doing this but even so they are. A scarier thought is that he knows exactly what he is doing and everyone who has read this thread has been exposed to an attempted manipulation of community thought-space.

.....attempted manipulation of community thought-space.
PART 3

Which makes him not a Troll, but an Agitator. Possible we need a new term: not a Troll but an OUGre....?

Which is almost exactly what this forum is good for! Lets start asking for submissions to the Most Inflammatory Thread Competition (this one doesn't quite rate sorry, maybe try a debate on a topic where actual thought is not wasted).

This thread should maybe remain active as we dissect the abilities, motivations, techniques and antidotes to such agenda-driven posting personalities. We will be seeing many more, some of whom are actual professionals in the fields of intelligence, Public Opinion Management (PR) and market research, as well as the fringe oddballs we traditionally associate this with. Detection will always be the issue - an articulate position by an individual with a view can easily be the guise of an organisation's proxy whose sole purpose is to influence a public debate to their direct benefit (as opposed to society's as a whole).

Dont know if anyone else has noticed, but the World Wide War on Secularism is quietly raging even in your comfortable Australian suburb. Once I figure out who is going to win in my neighbourhood I will know which religious(scientific?) books I have that will need to be burnt to keep my family safe...

PART 4

An afterthought: I suppose it is possible that OUG is as he says, looking for answers to questions that trouble him. If it doesnt trouble him then he is not after answers, he is after a fight with someone willing to join combat on his own terms (remember its a call for 'Evolutionists' - assumed to be people who believe in evolution in the same way some believe in creation.).
So if you really want answers, I would suggest:
1. restate the central question clearly
2. define contentious terminology as it is to be used in the discussion (as an example: "belief", the meaning and usage ascribed to this word is subtly but decisively different between the fields of science and religion)
3. post this somewhere the user-base has more knowledge. It is unlikely many people reading this thread completed their Masters in Biogenesis, so the references you are likely to get are unlikely to be much different to your own Googling (try their literature search).
4. take pains to avoid sheltering in dogmas that reinforce the perception of you being "so blind as those who will not see" - It really saps the motivation of those who would like to answer you, when it appears you aren't listening anyway. I appreciate you have continued posting on this, but please address the responses that do have merit instead of crowing about the attacks and counter-dogmas that are really second-rate targets.
5. Be aware that there are plenty of ideas out there that are not easily explained to a 5-year old. An example would be expecting the 5yo to have the math ability to see (or work out on paper?) that the observed microevolutionary changes (that you concede exist) when combined with changing environments, geography and time, will lead to evolution of lifeforms. Lets face it many adults don't get that one.

What is the more likely answer to the question "Where did all this come from?"

a) My imaginary friend thunk it up, or
b) "Stuff" happens (and sometimes the stuff sticks together, and sometimes it makes more interesting stuff).

To find evidence for proposition (a), hands up all those who have proof of an imaginary friend?

To find evidence for proposition (b), hands up all those who have ever come across stuff just happening?

I'm thinking you could find a few more examples of (b).

I love this random collection of things that we call the universe, I love that we carbon based bipeds have a drive to figure stuff out, and I love that the journey of discovery is never ending.

I feel no need to invent an imaginary friend to explain it all. Life is far more exciting without one.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Religion is a failure of the imagination"
Me (and probably quite a few other smart people)

Religion is not a failure of the imagination.
It in fact is evidence we have an active imagination.
We however fall for threads like this every time.
Posts exceed numbers in threads about nearly every thing else.
And if you look at the front line troops for God you will see we are not heard.
Unlikely ever to be.
We let religion control far too much of human life and maybe far too much of the forum.
Is OUG a troll? I do not know but he needs to live of his life its the only one he has.

UOG,

p64 is the 2nd link
judge not lawyer
there is a difference

I dont watch tv drama

Read the quote in full,
he agrees with some of IDs arguments
but takes no position,
as it was not within the case

'should ID be taught in science class'

answer no
and for good reason (see quote...)

however, the point of the case is also
my point, ID is not within sci domain

* your orig question took jurisdiction over science
on matters of specific science
That is my objection *

I take no position on matters of eternal soul
of revelation of bible on matters of spirit
within this debate

- criticise as you will... I do not take that
position lightly as you believe

that is not within the domain of science
and should not be taught in science

This goes to topic as per my first post...

do I believe in evolution - yes

same as you believe in god - not required
to hold evolution as valid discourse on life

does evolution invalidate an intelligent designer?
not necessarily....but

it does invalidate many Creationist arguments
as they were put forward over the years

this is why they lost that specific case

is it possible that CS & ID can make
scientific pronouncements with the same
authority as science?

I am sceptical with regard to that...
however prove me wrong

ps - how did you like my bedtime story?

did you notice my 5yr old still believed in
christmas at the end? (those materialists!!)

that goes to belief, but of a different kind
not incompatible with the mechanisms of
science

I wouldn't teach atheism to a child...
I also wouldnt teach fundamentalism
and refuse medical care ( as a minority
actually believe)

you claim genetic knowledge granted.
that knowledge is a slice of total sci knowledge
that is part of concordance argument
for evolution as a valid -explanation-
of life

not to be confused with -cause-

that's your area...

ps - aside from AV jos recent post
I find many posts insulting to this debate...

_DB*R

Interesting point Belly and Amjay – is religion a failure of the imagination or a product of an overactive imagination?

I reckon it is both; an active imagination in the first instance and then a failure of imagination by those who blithely just go along with it.

It is a pity that threads with religious themes generally get much more response than just about any other subject. But having said that, I’m intrigued about the imagination – religion connection.

So I reckon I’ll start a new thread! ( :>)

lest my admission
here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2317&page=0

validating spiritual evolution
be admitted as any proof
[that i believe materiaL EVOLUTION]

I RESTATE

PROVE IT [with fact]

NOT BY USING MY WORDS

to reply to some off topic responses
would be responding to the flame of trolls[i refuse to go there]

i will not restate the boundry of THIS topic

it is still clearly that evolution isnt a science
[it is a belief][based on 'believable fact'
[OR 'more likely',that is null science]

if science please DEFINE it clearly here on these pages
via link or words

and re that first life[abiogensis]
prove it happend NOT by gods hand

it is interesting to note the NUMBER of the troll's
[off topic responses],
and attempt's to rephrase the question
with other questions,that i got here

but no attempt to validate the topic with faulsifiable[verified ]science fact thus is revealed as it's SCI-trance[not science]


compared to the [much]fewer number of off topic trolling at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2317&page=0

where i note even unbelievers
have some ideas about what god[the root of all]is

but many clearly have no idea re evolutions roots
nor what evolution[or abgensis is]

thus clearly religions teach their
[right AND wrong messages]more affectivly

than science teaches its right [and WRONG]ones
via selective exclusion of any debate
[cause its a sealed science deal]

closed minds cannot debate
[closed ears cannot hear, closed eyes cannot see

the PRESENT debate is hurt by the bad frauds of times gone past

someone said
am i open to chamge my belief
[NO]

but you guys claim to believe BASED ON FACT
[mine is faith;remember?]

well much called fact isnt science fact
verify[replicate]proove[if science it be]

but it also
via adulating its faulse gods
has many wrong'uns

thankfully neither side got it ALL right
but then god is THE ONLY perfect

if its not VERIFIABLE science
it's SCI-trance

QUOTE
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 8:01:46 AM

Interesting point Belly and Amjay – is religion a failure of the imagination or a product of an overactive imagination?

I reckon it is both; an active imagination in the first instance and then a failure of imagination by those who blithely just go along with it.

It is a pity that threads with religious themes generally get much more response than just about any other subject. But having said that, I’m intrigued about the imagination – religion connection.

So I reckon I’ll start a new thread! ( :>)....<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2323

it takes no imagination TO JUST FOLLOW blindly

BUT you raise an interEseting point
the lack of imagination is covered over
by becoming a fanatic
[be it fanatical ABOUT belief in evolutions THEORIES
or faulse theories about god]

[each theory has its specialists]
who only KNOW their SPECIALised area of knowing

each of gods messengers has become more than their message [GOD}

[or made sacrement [sacrocanct] the theories hidden in the words and rituals of believers in 'their' chosen messenger 's mess age]

[and the religions formed ARROUND their mess-AGE
are all forms of religious belief]

evolution theory is as faith based
than athiest would be able to take comfort in

but they TOO revere their [imagi-native] messengers into faulse gods

[all of em, religious or evil-lootionist alike]

the loot is the belief [faith] of its UN-IMAGINATIVE followers

we are soon to leave these realms of science certainties
it is hoped the next generation
will have the imagination to think their own thoughts

to realise THEIR OWN DREAMS
live by their own im-ages

create their own new r]age mess-in-jures

[not accept blindly the vision media
[and special intrests]wants to SELL us]

Under one god,

Your last couple of posts have simply been disjointed burblings, having started this post and claim scientific knowledge, to simply retreat into a corner and mutter to yourself does more than simply strip you of any credibility, but calls into question your lucidity.

Or as per Cheech "I want whatever that guy's smoking"

Shadow Minister said:
Or as per Cheech "I want whatever that guy's smoking"

Hell no, (shudder) you wouldn't want to end up like uog spilling your crazed and fractured stream of consciousness all over the internets

UOG
re. your post on 'what sort of entity is god'
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 8:51:48 AM

resonated...

and I've read quite a few... following from the beginning...

that post said it all for me, I was hoping for that in you prior to that I was afraid you were just another ....

yet

I was quite dismayed by;

create their own new r]age mess-in-jures

on this thread...

perhaps the words of frustration...

however

being as I'm just dead matter animated by
electrochemical impulses
and my mind is merely an emergent
epiphenomenon looks like I'll
never be redeemed

--

physical law is to god as the hammer is to the carpenter

even 'dead' science has its deeper hidden layers

energy can neither be created nor destroyed but changes form

how do they know?

how do they test that?

what happened before the big bang?

they didn't say it started there

it's assumed it has always been - eternal

--

don't bother answering

Im out

Ive already made peace with my ever evolving soul

I see

you understand transcendence
the cage of the mind
the leap of faith
to the larger world
to allow for the creator

the access is the heart
and connects to totality

the mind of the creator
contains creation
when you are unbounded
every movement is creation

--
I'm heartened

now we're in a different domain
maybe I see what you mean by evolution

the question

"Evolutionists [stand up] EXPLAIN your ambiogenesis
that 'first cell that evolved via natural selection
that is the first evolution [in theory]"

so...
why evolve? (an explanation)

not 'life evolved' (a description)

why not just out-replicate the competition...?

why not just adjust basic chemical properties to changes in the environment?

why would a molecule replicate?
and develop information carrying capability?
and why head toward sentience?

interesting...

- access to more energy...?
- a greater conduit for energy & matter?
- expression of chemical bonds & packing geometries?

or

an expression of something immaterial inherent in matter
consciousness? quantum vibrations carrying interference patterns?
a logos of sorts?
scale does not affect information
if it can be stored effectively
in energy
at the infinitely small
and the vast

scale came into form when energy became matter
boing

think I know what you meant by quoting the amoeba e.g.
sounded silly...
but when one considers this difficult to define quality called consciousness

more interesting...

not easy to explain with naturalism & science
impossible?

they would of course say that consciousness was an epiphenomenon and an illusion

the opposing is that consciousness is the reality and physical mind is the illusion (or a model of a greater intelligence)

evolution? a process of manifesting (or forming) universal consciousness? through energy spiralled up into material expression
on a cosmic cycle...

these are thoughts
thought can contemplate beyond the senses
but
there is also emotion and direct experience
available from our deeper structure and earlier form
with cognition overlayed

I hope that is what you mean by creation
and evolution

that is why I believe they should not be confused
with either sci or relig. different path to this arena
arguing with scientists over this one... I don't know...

the creation reflects the creator
and contemplating creation we strive to understand the creator
we imagine that state of total being
only coherence(love) can create
otherwise entropy
life's struggle, create or die

in *that* context,
you say sci. evo. is a theory

I agree.

--

But it's not like saying 'big bang is a theory'

I will illustrate;

Current mainstream theory

'big bang' steady state or collapse back to origin

recently

'big bounce' - universe can't come to a point but very close to it & then bounces... & this is probably eternal

OK - this is not reality
It is prediction
but it has to be tested etc etc

To the extent people confuse *that* with reality
clearly they are mistaken.

With sci evo however, at a certain level,
It works as a disciplne
You might call it reality

That is the belief I have in sci evo
you might call it rational belief

DN8R
the point i wished to make is the theory
is only a theory
via lack of a rebuttal
[validating it] ,any opinion is equal]

i favour the big bounce theory

i can visualised an expanding universe
as we get ever more divided
[each of the uncountable trillions of realms draw further appart]

validations i have had are the expanding earth theory
[it seems natural the contents expand as the universe does]

these of course are only theories as well

but if the theory is valid
then the spiritual would verify it

and indeed it has
spiritual writings [channeled] from the after life
confirm the expansion[ie confirm big bang]
[and SPI-RITUAL evolution]

BY visualising it spiritually
see the spirits evolving
thus taking suitable form

like bankers are blood suckkers

as long as they love sucking us dry
their next incarnation must be in the blood suckkers
[just to satisfy their need]

human bruts return as carnivors

the bible even reports satan as a serphant [re?] incarnated
ie sewn into the skin of a snake

just as adam/eve were 'sewn into skins [of mankind]

there was even a king turned into a beast of the field
[for 8? years]
about the life expectancy of a 'blemished'
[as opposed to unblemmished beast]

yet by observing even the most vile of living
god gave each their life choice.

i will never say that our life giver isnt LOVE

cause for me i would not give the life sukkkers a second bite

good thing im not god [eh]

UOG, leave that to him,

keep your face to the light and your back against the dark...

a dios

yeah
the bounce,
perpetual motion

ancient writings speak of cycles within cycles,

interesting how the more sci learns, the closer they get to all that

...many paths...

-

.good.challenge.

not what it seemed at 1st

Under one dog AKA DB8R

Talking to yourself?

Tried Prozac?

SM, Not that UOG needs my defense,
but you help me illustrate my point being here

-

What do you mean we are the same person?

Using the evidence you have available... only; prove it
or- prove I'm someone else

You have a belief I am UOG, prove it.
Insufficient evidence?

I have a rational belief that I am not UOG,
and - wearing my rationalist/materialist hat,
I *can* prove that, [in court for example. as per Intelligent Design v's Sci.Evolution]

>but, if I put my spiritualist hat on...
I may believe I *am* the same person,
in that domain, we *all* are... [unity of consciousness]

>or- sci./philosopher; at the basis of all is energy...
so, we are all part of one energy mass called universe
etc.

belief, point of view, discourse, speculation

I may not agree with UOG in one domain,
but I can see some similarity in others...

probing the nature of belief - you call it delusion?
that's your belief, based on sicence, subject to change,
as the evidence comes in... e.g. big bang - big bounce

cheers

It's an open forum, but a little respect goes a long way.

---

Causality (disambiguation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Causality" may refer to:
...

* Philosophy
o Causality <<-
o Causal determinism
o Causal relationships
o Causal theory of reference
o Causalism
o Fallacy of the single cause <<-

* Science
o Causality (physics). <<-
o Causal dynamical triangulation
o Causal filter
o Causal perturbation theory
o Causal system
o Causality loop

* Other
o Causal loop diagram, infographics concept.
o Causal realm, in mysticism. <<-
o Cause and Effect (TNG episode). <<- [a favourite:-] it is speculation after all

>> and just taking a subset of philosophy; >>

Philosophy:

* Aetiology
* Chicken or the egg <<[just ask the first chicken;-]
* Determinism
* Efficient cause
* Final cause (teleology)
* Free will
* Material cause
* Mill's Methods
* Newcomb's paradox
* Ontological paradox
* Post hoc ergo propter hoc
* Predestination paradox
* Proximate and ultimate causation

yeah i know
just wanted it noted
thanks again

Original Message
From: "Graham Young" <graham.young@onlineopinion.com.au>
To: <johanhendrick@ozemail.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 11:23 AM
Subject: RE: Comment deletion recommendation

> Turn the other cheek I think.
>
> Graham
>
> Chief Editor & Founder
> On Line Opinion
> www.onlineopinion.com.au

>
>Original Message
> From: Forum Administrator [mailto:nationalforum@onlineopinion.com.au]
> Sent: 27 November 2008 08:28
> To: Graham
> Subject: Comment deletion recommendation
>
> Complaint received from johan hendrick (johanhendrick@ozemail.com.au)
> regarding this post:
>
> Comment link:
> http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/show-post-general.asp?comment=51145
>
> Complaint:
> i am not the accused
> [i forget the name ...db8f?]
>
> to respond to the troll would only invite further response
>
> i do not need validation that much that i would create an other id
> the comment as is usual is offensive to me
>
> [and i presume the poster mentioned]
>
> but as in law
> failing to respond 'looks like' guilt
>
> thus i respond to you for a remedy
>
> i have ONLY one id at olo

UOD / Johan Hendrick / DB8R

I used to mark student's papers and it is extremely easy to spot changes / similarity in style and I could pinpoint plaguerism with close to 100% accuracy.

Your posts are so similar in tempo, type face, used opinion and rambling nature that your fingerprints match far too closely. I stand by my comment that Johan Hendrick is both DB8R and UOG.

Otherwise we have a pair of identical trolls. Your complaint to Graham is no proof otherwise as all that is required to register an ID is an email address of which I have one at home and one at work and could register 2 IDs if I so desired.

If DB8R demonstrates he is not you I will retract my statement otherwise I stand by it.

despite responding further to your troll
i will quote you

..>>OUG, ignorance is being unaware of the facts,..<<

your revealing your own ignorance
if you read db6r postings you will see he makes different points that myself

now you may claim to be some teacher

but i can only feel sympathy for those
who accept your teaching to be true[or reasond]

i thank god that our moderators have much info available to test your theory
[no doudt we have a visit log of some sort that will reveal
we EACH are as we have informed you to be [DIFFERENT]

i know the person not!

he disagrees with much of my conclusions
[but does appear to have the open mind you lack]

so [to you] ANY post you cant comprehend
is wrote by the same mind[hand, or id or whatever your claim is]

regardless you fail to respond to the TOPIC point

but like many other respondants fail to reply with fact
only insult
and redirection

i remind you of your words
..>>being aware and not able to change your opinion to suit the facts is stupidity...<<AS Posted by Shadow Minister,

as i have said prove it

it[your]point has as much validity as your flawed defense [not explanation ]of the THEORY

why do i have this de ja vou feeling

seems it followed a simuler reply to a specific topic

like that which followed [like] my last response to a other previous questioner in a post topic i replied to with explanetary prophecy ,that i just posted

[are you a rabi by chance ,from the homeland?]

are you who you claim to be?
prove it

ok its not fact to topic

[but this is what you are doing]
flamming
well flame away
[you dont have facts,because there arnt any]

Under one dog / DB8R / Johan Hendick

You have yet to provide one lucid fact in all your rantings.

One piece of evidence or lucid reason and I would change my mind.

If you cannot put 2 cogent sentences together how can pretend to present a reasoned response.

I still assume you are all the same person.

SM, glad I'm not one of your students.
I did say I could prove it in court.
(but I'll settle for a pub ;-)

You were right about one thing, I was talking to myself, in a sense, but not as you accused... I have my own reasons for that. no harm done that I can tell. I'm not UOG and don't know him.

Accuse me of whatever, but not of taking the question at face value

>UOG

thanks mate, everyone had you pegged as a typical fundie ID'er just a crazy christian - I was one of the early posters so I've been following this closely...

you say a lot of *really* far out things and I have not looked at other threads except the 'what is god' one - where I saw your comment re. spiritual evolution (until that point I was ready to leave - disappointed) - I asked you as PTP what you meant by god and you told me.

I wasn't happy with my attitude before but I took the time to see what was bothering me and take it seriously... my understanding of belief.

The point is not whether you've convinced me of anything. I can still take a rationalist position but have respect for others' point of view.

I can demonstrate species morph within the same evo. branch -but- you say that one branch is one 'design' regardless, so where do all the branches join up (that's still god of the gaps to me) etc. etc. etc.

Thankfully we live in a country where I can question god (not like Iran) or question no-god (not like China)... and allow formative minds the freedom to choose according to best conscience...

That's my point.

Thanks UOG
Thanks all and

a dios

The trick is not knowing all the answers, but appreciating the real meaning of the question. What this really taught me.

There we go again, both make the identical mistake and comment.

I never said I was a teacher or had students.

DB8R comes on as UOD runs out of posts.

DB8R uses the word fundie, also South African like Johan Hendrick I guess.

You can run but you can't hide.

oh dear shadlow ministar
i have never used the wird 'fundie'
i am not south africanse

i was educated in nederland [formerly called holland]
you know those who built their OWN land[having even on dry land one foot on the land [and one on the sea]

you know we[you and i][maybe db8r too] live here in new holland as discovered by the dutch and spanish pre the mason cook comming up with the plan to invade VAN-die-mens land[of the peoples land]

looking for the river of life[rev 22][namoi river ] that used to be joined to the hunter river [where hemp ] the design of the burning bush [made into the lampstand ex 25;30]

i of course smoke flax i refuse to quench[issiah42]

i have in my journeys learnt that science of evolution
is far from a science

via hemp i was forced to learn and study genetics
[via memdelism, found it disproved evolution, in jail i was given a new testiment and soon realised god explains it better

now you can have your delusions as much as you like

moderators have informed me to let it slide
[or words to this affect]
so i am

the topic is
PLEASE explain evolution

please explain the first evolution[abiogenesis]

we all have theories
[and your proving your incapable of moving from your fised delusion
i am what i am
[one who lives to love god
[and his creation]

i do not belong to any religious sect

you want to know me as me
contact the hemp embassy at nimbin

i am one of two paid up life members of the help[end prohibition party [
hemp]they will ceryify me as being insane and a narc ,regardless they are as wrong
as you you well deserve to get together

you are decieved by your own mind
your own fears decry your self

twice so far just here on this post alone

now return to topic
stop flaming

post fact
explain the flawed theory

Shadow Minister wrote:

"DB8R uses the word fundie, also South African like Johan Hendrick I guess."

Sounds more like Canadian baying at fundie.

Dear UOG

How can I put this gently....

You can't "discover" a land in/upon which people are already living.

Australia/New Holland was not "discovered" by the Dutch/Spanish/Portuguese/English/British etc. It was already inhabited.

You know, by those folk we refer to as Indigenous* Australians.

*(Indigenous Peoples or autochthonous peoples can be used to describe any ethnic group who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection - from that ever faithful wikipepdia thingy)

The Dutch just happened to stumble upon a place already "found" by someone else. No credit to the Dutch either, as they were trying for the Dutch East Indies and got lost, kinda like when I get drunk and "discover" the laneway next to the pub.

well amjay no kidding

thanks for the info
BUT
it is typical of evolutionist debate
the non responses
and off topic trolls [and name calling]

not you of course amjay

i regret there was no verification here to support your evolution theory

[it was meant to be the topic]

i am well aware of the position re australian sovereignity

amoung other things i have lived at the aborigonal tent embassy in canberra[i curated the museum that got burnt down 3 times till i just pasted the info on the wall below the murel]

funny how the story of jesph banks poisening the natives with small pox riddled gifts is tried to be hushed up

as well as capt cooks sealed order's
and capt philyps commision

QUOTE[''..you are to endeavour BY EVERY POSSABLE MEANS to open intercourse with the native[delete savages]
and to consiliate their affections,ENJOINING ALL our subjects to live in amity and KINDNESS with them
AND if ANY of our subjects shall wantomly destroy them[OR GIVE them any UNESSESARY interuption in the exercize of their several occupations.
IT IS OUR WILL and pleasurethat you do cause such offenders bought to punishmentACCORDING TO THE DEGREE OF OFFENCE...'

BUT of course that is its own topic

>>..this topic is about evolution>>,

that clearly hasnt been replied
in the over 100 posts posted so far

one day some one might add up the off topic trolls
that must be getting near one third of the posts

all of which reveal clearly

no validation is available to support evolution
NOR abiogenesis as a science]

i guess i will just let the trolls flame away

it just reveals clearly
to those decieved by the theory
just who else supports the lie

and the level of proof some mindlessly accept as fact

just to prove im open minded
and that even bacteria are a little more complicated that even evolutionists could comprehend[LOL]

thus further elimination 'chance' as well as 'evolution'[came accros this researching siano bacteria[a plant that turns into a beast;lol]

quote..>>E-mail address: jan.michiels@agr.kuleuven.ac.be
Copyright 2004 Federation of European Microbiological Societies
KEYWORDS
Quorum sensing • Swarming • Surface translocation • Population density-dependent • N-acyl-homoserine lactone • AI-2
Abstract


Bacterial cells can produce and sense signal molecules, allowing the whole population to initiate a concerted action once a critical concentration (corresponding to a particular population density) of the signal has been reached, a phenomenon known as quorum sensing.

One of the possible quorum sensing-regulated phenotypes is swarming, a flagella-driven movement of differentiated swarmer cells (hyperflagellated, elongated, multinucleated) by which bacteria can spread as a biofilm over a surface. The glycolipid or lipopeptide biosurfactants thereby produced function as wetting agent by reducing the surface tension.

Quorum sensing systems are almost always integrated into other regulatory circuits. This effectively expands the range of environmental signals that influence target gene expression beyond population density.

In this review, we first discuss the regulation of AHL-mediated surface migration and the involvement of other low-molecular-mass signal molecules (such as the furanosyl borate diester AI-2) in biosurfactant production of different bacteria.

In addition, population density-dependent regulation of swarmer cell differentiation is reviewed. Also, several examples of interspecies signalling are reported. Different signal molecules either produced by bacteria (such as other AHLs and diketopiperazines) or excreted by plants (such as furanones, plant signal mimics) might influence the quorum sensing-regulated swarming behaviour in bacteria different from the producer. On the other hand, specific bacteria can reduce the local available concentration of signal molecules produced by others.

In the last part, the role and regulation of a surface-associated movement in biofilm formation is discussed. Here we also describe how quorum sensing may disperse existing biofilms and control the interaction between bacteria and higher organisms(such as the Rhizobium-bean symbiosis).

Received 14 March 2003, Revised 11 September 2003,Accepted 18 September 2003..<<

[dont kid the kidder]

"Judgment Day- Intelligent Design On Trial" tonight at 20:30 on SBS.
Should be interesting.

It's the 2nd part. If you missed the first part you should be able to watch it from the SBS website.

oug wrote:

just to prove im open minded
and that even bacteria are a little more complicated that even evolutionists could comprehend[LOL]

thus further elimination 'chance' as well as 'evolution'[came accros this researching siano bacteria[a plant that turns into a beast;lol]

quote..>>E-mail address: jan.michiels@agr.kuleuven.ac.be
Copyright 2004 Federation of European Microbiological Societies

Dear oug.

Probably every member of the Federation of European Microbiological Societies accepts evolution so those accepting evolution comprehend what bacteria can do.

dear david accepting isnt verifying[proving]

my point being intelligence dosnt happen by chance[if EVEN bacteria [and as previously posted by me ] amaeba have 'thought', abitlty to recieve and comunicate, have likes and dislikes ,then logic clearly preceeded their SINGLE cellular creation.

this posting becan with a call for naming names

[if it is a science it has to meet science proofs[faulsifiability ,the main premise that if disproven disproves the theory[as was used to rebut creationists in a law court[not a science lab]or by peer revieuw of facts but by a deemed faulsifiable [ie a legal manouver]

a science is replicatable using the science the theory revealed[evolution is not a science]courts arnt about testing the facts in totality[it judges ONLY the facts [or debate ;interpritation ]of the facts presented]

saying the matter is been judged
still hasnt proven it to be science
only science can prove it is science
courts arnt scientific [they have rules for what evidence is acceptable and what isnt ,if its not first hand witness its not evidence ,thus if your not darwin you cant testify]

lest we forget satan is a lawyer

and evolution theory fails[as anyone being honest will admit] it fails by its own measure
#because it is a theory [a theology] [or a philosophy] but NOT A SCIENCE

if you claim it is
EVOLVE somthing

or explain what evolved into what
[the how what where when theory]
science does not recognise'IF'

now see how the media spin on the trial is offered as 'proof'?
court facts arnt faulsifiable

[science must be, or it aint science]

Dear oug,

Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact shown by the fossil record of species coming into being, disappearing and being replaced by other species. It is a fact as shown by experiments with fruit flies and bacteria evolving new species as they develop resistence to antibiotics. The only theory involved is the mechanisms by which evolution takes place.

I used the word, accept, rather than proven because evolution exists. You may doubt that something that exists is real. That is your problem.

Under one gog said:
“lest we forget Satan is a lawyer”
Really....where did you get that one from LOL?

Under one god said:
“and evolution theory fails[as anyone being honest will admit] it fails by its own measure
#because it is a theory [a theology] [or a philosophy] but NOT A SCIENCE”

Creation scientists do not accept falsification; their fundamental belief in the truth of Genesis is fixed, non-negotiable, and unshakable. The Bible says it; they believe it; case closed. They refuse to consider that the Bible might be proven false. The truth of the Bible is one of their basic assumptions. Since it lacks the principle of falsification, creation science is not generally considered a form of science, except by some conservative Christians. What arouses the anger of scientists (about intelligent design believers) is their idea that it belongs in the same universe as scientific analysis. Scientists also reject creation science as a part of science, because they generally regard its basic conclusions to be wrong, having been proven false by the available evidence.

Based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, creation scientists have concluded that the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years. They also totally believe the existing species of animals developed from a smaller number of "kinds" which first appeared, fully formed, during creation week. They’re convinced that humans were part of a separate creation, separate from that of animals. Scientists have generally rejected all of these beliefs due to the monumental body of evidence that disputes these beliefs.
.
So, in conclusion, evolution is based on a huge body of evidence which is being diligently uncovered every day by inquisitive humans.

Creationism is based on a book written 2000 years ago.

Leaving aside the conspiracy theories that you continually give links to, tell me if you can, honestly, in your own words, how god, in your view got all the species into being – and cite some evidence, if possible LOL. Given that your belief includes unsubstantiated miracles and other flawed ideas, why would you dispute science which is based on evidence?

dear trickerdee
quote>>..Based on a literal interpretation of Genesis,creation scientists have concluded that the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years...>>

please point out[in the book]WHERE?
its an evolutionists strawman[just like flat earth is INFURED by every eye shall see him] its a destraction

HOW DOES THIS RELATE to your explaining evolution?

>>..They also totally believe the existing species of animals developed from a smaller number of "kinds" which first appeared, fully formed, during creation week..>>

again with the time delusion
god is free of time[eternal] omnipresent]

one GOD'creation week'= billions of OUR years

..>> They’re convinced that humans were part of a separate creation, separate from that of animals...<<

god may well have used evolution
MY POINT BEING
science cant proove nor disprove how he did it

yes we have a theory[an evolving theory]

that 'naTURAL SELECTION
[NEEDING A 'NATURAL SELECTOR] DID IT 'NATURALLY ,but as yet MAN HASNT REPLICATED let alone explained it via science it cant be science only a theory

breed stasis is a confirmed fact

no Scientist has reported a change of species] bacyeria are still bacteia, fruitflies are still fruit flies sheep breed sheep]

this is a base fact
science has not evolved via its theory into science faulsifyable fact

those who have '
>>..generally rejected all of these beliefs due to the monumental body of evidence that disputes these beliefs...>>
ARE NOT ABLE TO PRESENT THE SCI-ENCE PROOF of this SO CALLED large body of evidence? here and now

what evolved into what
when/how/what #/where
where is this faulsifyable evolution
[into a NEW species?]

ie name names evolutionists

put up the proof that the 60 macro mutations [difference between us and ape REALLY happend[THAT it can be via science replicated]

randon chance isnt science
fossils arnt science
look at how little fossil underlies the deception
prove ya theory

knocking creation theory dosnt prove evolution
only REAL faULSIFYABLE SCIENCE can confirm if it is a science or a theory or a fraud

the facts maaaaaam
just the F-ACTS
.

oug wrote:

"no Scientist has reported a change of species] bacyeria are still bacteia, fruitflies are still fruit flies sheep breed sheep]"

It is obvious from that remark that you don't know what the word, species, means. There are many species of both fruit flies and bacteria and new species of both have been observed

david [im asking the questions
your not explaining

here is an ape
[it has many breeds of apes in its species genome]
are you claiming it evolved into a HUH?man?
are we the same species?same breed? same genome?

ITS your division[read name] YOU KNOW sheep breed breeds of sheep[plus i put up a link earlier when i got another questioning about my use of the term]

PLEASE NOTE
pointing out error [sans correction ]is nit picking [but ITS NOT REPLY] please STATE what new EVOLUTION evolved into a type NOT LIKE ITS PARENTS?

how hard is it to explain the science?
it is clear no one can

read the debate about how those who cant explain distract, with definitions YET FAIL to explain the terms[and fail to explain their theory]

please be more accurate in your use of terms
explain what the term your using means

explain your theory
not complain my ignoRANTS

evolve something
explain something
replicate [dont speculate]
if science VALIDATE

the lack of explanation is clear[its easier to complain or call out a lie[if species is proven a lie]
than explain THE lie][your acusation neatly covers over doing

stop the reprooff
present your PROOF

UOG, the age of the earth is derived from geneologies which provide a list from Adam & Eve through to events that can be dated historically.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm for a writup of some of the history of that.

Many Creation Scientists think that the earth is young along with a large proportion of christain creationists
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/creatdef.htm

It's not "an evolutionists strawman", it's an issue that has been pushed long and hard by many creationists. It's important to those who consider the christian bible to be the literal word of god because it provides the means of calcualting the age of the earth and if that is wrong god has lied.

R0bert

thanks for the heads up robert

im not a great one for geniologies
[jesus has two divergent 'family lines'] yet his paternal was god?[huh?]

the chem begetting whatever
are spiritual states[like emanuel means 'god with us' or elisabeth means 'oath to god]]
and if i got them wrong
REMEMBER
that isnt the TOPIC

BUT how does knowing this stuff CONFIRM , explain or validate evolution?

[i dont need teaching about the bible
tell me
[EXPLAIN evolution for me]

as previously stated im not into religion [JUST GOD ;and thus his creation ,and via them the sacred texts] i know god is real but this topic isnt about belief
{not yours nor mine
[ITS ABOUT someone [anyone] EXPLAINING evo-polution[if it science be]

[the bible is a collection of stories many stolen from other tribes[abraham was the father of xtians and muslims [or whatever]

BUT THE TOPIC IS EXPLAIN EVOLUTION.

cheers

as jesus said let the dead tend the dead
explain to me this thing called ';evolution'

if its science GIVE ME THE SCIENCE

the topic is explain evolution NAMING names

[names have meaning but i know enough from the religious namings][islam means follow gods will] SO what? it is by their proofs [fruits/deeds] we are to be revealed not our theory[nor name]

this topic is JUST about evolution
[please explain the official FACTS]

UOG wrote:
"this is a base fact
science has not evolved via its theory into science faulsifyable fact

those who have '
>>..generally rejected all of these beliefs due to the monumental body of evidence that disputes these beliefs...>>
ARE NOT ABLE TO PRESENT THE SCI-ENCE PROOF of this SO CALLED large body of evidence? here and now"

Let me get this straight, you haven't presented any PROOF of YOUR theory but I must - to satisfy you?

This could go round and round forever.

I'm just stating things AS I SEE AND INTERPRET THEM. In other words, its JUST my opinion, just like your words are JUST your opinion. This is a forum FOR OPINIONS. I am not a scientist, go to a science site to pose this question, there may be scientists here, I don't know, but I am not one....ARE YOU?

Personally, I don't need the god delusion...but i would suggest you read it, its possible you might learn something of interest. From your rambling style, I think you're awfully confused, you need to broaden your horizons, take off those blinkers you're wearing, stay away from conspiracy theory websites, look at some real science websites and listen to some real scientists talking about their investigations, do some REAL research. You may learn a thing or two about the questions you're asking here, or you may not, but methinks its worth a try. If you think you've got proof positive of your ideas...er...theory, why not put them forth for all to see. Otherwise, let it go and move on.

Celivia, I watched the second part of ‘Judgment Day - Intelligent Design On Trial’ yesterday evening. Missed the first part but I don’t think it mattered. Enjoyed observing how the intelligent design advocates were very logically and systematically dealt with. Very good.

I was intrigued as to why the ‘IDers’ used the bacterial flagellum and its motor mechanism as their main example of intelligent design, and stayed right away from the eye or ear or heart or whole creature of any sort, all of which are considerably more complex and also have to have all the parts working for the organ and organism to function. They could only have picked some highly obscure thing like the bacterial flagellum instead of something that we are all familiar with because they thought that the developmental (evolutionary) history of the flagellum motor mechanism couldn't be explained by evolution whereas for these other organs they feared that it could be demonstrated or pretty confidently extrapolated from looking at a wide range of creatures that are living today, and from the fossil record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Did you know that you’ve got reptilian bones in your mammillian (sic) ears? http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=TZyYHGObgk8

Dear Ludwig,

I suggested "The Book of Life" to oug as it is an excellent source. On page 96 it shows the evolution of the mammalian jaw from the reptilian. with the malleus and incus bones in the mammalian ear formerly part of the reptilian Jaw. I have come to the conclusion that oug really isn't interested in putting in any effort to learn about evolution. She or he repeats the same or similar lines even after getting new info. I suggest "The Book of Life" to the rest of you as I think it is fascinating.

UOG, The original topic was about abiogenesis which is different to evolution (but a necessary precursor for it). Do you want explaination of evolution or abiogenesis?

My impression is that the debate about abiogenesis is still open, there are a number of theories which need to speculate about conditions at the time to a degree which makes it difficult to have a high level of confidence in which mechanism was involved. The mechanisms invol ved in evolution have been identified with a high level of certainty, the theory makes predictions which can be verified with a rock pick. Abiogenesis needs us to learn some more before we can have the same degree of certainty.

I consider evolution to the best currently known explaination for the origins of life on this planet. I'm not a scientist (and especially not a scientist in a relevant field) and don't have the knowledge or understand every aspect of the theory nor to try and explain it to someone who clearly does not want to understand it.

The other known major competing theories have been falsified - unless you think that god has gone around creating false evidence of evolution to confuse or that evolution occurred but god's hand invisibly guided it in such a meandering manner that it becomes invisible unless you are desperate to see it.

Scientists can make predictions about what they expect to find in a certain age of rock then go dig in rocks of that age and sometimes find what they expected to find.

No I can't give the science of the earliest life, as others have suggested ask that question in a forum where posters have the necessary science skills. I can read the work of others, I can weigh the credibility of what is presented and I can make judgements based on that.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Intermediate_Forms#The_theory_of_evolution_predicts_intermediate_forms

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_12.htm

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2217546/Why-Is-Evolution-Important-How-Science-Works-The-Theory-of-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

R0bert

robert i checked out one of your links
as you dont specify where in the link i chose the tijtaalak[or whatever you guys call that'intermediate'[that has flippers[not limbs nor a shoulderblade[the thing all legged animals have got]

so here is my SPECIFIC reply
from this link
http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae/

using this quote

>>..Actually it’s a red herring!

As discussed elsewhere on this site,the question of how one fills the gap between Panderichthys and Acanthostega is ultimately a side issue for the thesis that lobe-finned fish evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods.Apart from the problem of identifying Ichthyostega’s descendants, the crucial questions include:

How does one account for tetrapod trackways in beach sediments that predate even Tiktaalik by 10 million years?

How does one fill the gap between Tiktaalik, which was a fish with no legs, and an aïstopod such as Lethiscus, which within 20 million years had supposedly acquired legs and limb girdles and then lost them again, and changed from a fish to something more like a snake than any tetrapod?

That is the burden of proof that needs to be discharged. As Clack remarked in an academic paper earlier in the year, Lethiscus suggests that ‘a great deal happened in the course of tetrapod evolution that we know very little about’. This is one of the trade secrets of palaeontology to which Darwinians do not like to draw public attention.
Until the problem is solved, however, it seems reasonable to conclude that we know very little about tetrapod evolution at all and to regard Tiktaalik in much the same light as one now regards the lung-fishes, which, for all their superficial appeal as intermediates, are no longer seen as ancestral to tetrapods.>>

so much for FACTS[you give links ,thus i rebut one point that invalidates the whole link[one flaw the whole science is flawed;its not science faulsifiable]

i know you got no specific proofs

all could easilly be rebutted
if you didnt YEARN for proof of what you BELIEVE, i research things, dare to ask questions[and am not afraid of what the real truth reveals

why dont you guys question EVERYTHING[anything?]

Hi Ludwig,
I enjoyed a great deal of schadenfreude while watching Judgment Day. What a treat! What a bunch of lying nutcases were those creationists.
First, the creationists were happy that Judge Jones was appointed because he is a conservative handpicked by Bush.
Then, when they lost the case because of their own crackpot science, they threatened the judge and others with violence. Judge Jones got death threats and didn’t he say that he had to go into hiding, or something?

Ah I figure your guess about the reason why they picked the flagellum motor to illustrate irreducible complexity might be correct. Darwin wrote about the evolution of the eye but of course, couldn’t have known about the flagellum.

I thought it was hilarious when the creationist (not sure if that was Behe or someone else) was asked whether, according to his own definition of science, astrology would be included. He tried to beat around the bush but had to answer the question in the end- which was, of course, YES.

Second funny thing was when the creationists attacked the knowledge of science about the immune system, but seemed to know little or nothing about the existence of the huge big pile of thousands of articles and books that had been written about the immune system and how it evolved.

I might read Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” some time next year, if I’m in the mood for comedy.

Sad thing is that DVDs such as “Unlocking The Mystery Of Life” still go around and are being fed to the religious even after the points they use such as the flagellum motor have been debunked. Not only are they handed out in the US but here in Australia, too.
My friend was given a copy by one of the Pentecostals she knows.

RObert,
"Scientists can make predictions about what they expect to find in a certain age of rock then go dig in rocks of that age and sometimes find what they expected to find."
Exactly, and so far no one has found anything that would prove Darwin wrong

OUG, perhaps you should have checked more than one link and one part of that link. If questioning everything is something you value you need to go a bit further than spotting one piece that is clearly still under discussion, linking to an article which raises questions about that items and considering the case closed. Discussion and investigation of tiktaalik is still under way http://boardmanbio.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-evidence-that-tiktaalik-is-missing.html . If it turns out that tiktaalik is not what they think it is evolution is not invalidated, that particular find is not what it was initially thought to be. Big deal.

Find the dinosour fossil with a half eaten human in it's mouth and evolution needs a major rethink, find the human fossils in the oldest layers of rock where human fossils should not be and evolution has a problem. It does not have a problem because doubt exists over the relevance of one particular fossil which in most ways matches the predictions made for it before it's discovery.

I don't actively question every detail because I have neither the time or energy to check everything. I check the big things to the best of my ability which are crucial to the rest.

R0bert

celiva
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents
from
http://www.aclu.org/evolution/legal/complaint.pdf

QUOTE>>the defendant..The[EVOLUTION]Theory is not a fact.Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence...>>

[there are many GAPS ,SEE NEXT POST]as honest appraisal would confirm

The complaint was[quote>>.'(defendants’“intelligent design policy”)will compel public school science teachers to present to their students in biology class information that is inherently religious,not scientific,in nature.

The resolution thus is in clear and direct violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,which prohibits the teaching or presentation of religious ideas in public school science classes>>>

so[DUH][lol]it wasnt ABOUT evolution]but about''teaching or presentation of religious ideas'!

it wasnt about PROVING nor DISproving'CREATION'[it was ONLY about allowing the full facts to be questioned ON THE GROUNDS of'teaching religious ideas in public schools'']

roberts link
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Intermediate_Forms#The_theory_of_evolution_predicts_intermediate_forms
quote>>..where are all the intermediate forms?..they are still with us;ring species]LOL[the link[PROOF?] http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

[QUOTE}
>>..Salamander ringspecies;information;the Ensatina ring species,SEE/NEXT LINK

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l05205.html

Greenish warbler ringspecies
An article..that discusses greenish warblers..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

....>>in all cases we are talking about breeds of salimander/breeds of a warbler species{LOL][THAT FAILS the wiki description]

[QUOTe>>..Definition;If an organism'B'is intermediate in form between organisms'A'and'C,then it is said to be an intermediate form between A.and.C.

Intermediate forms are one of the key predictions of the theory of evolution,which'stipulates'/ORDERS?that species evolved through a gradual process of natural selection acting on small variations.It follows that<<if>>a kind of animal'C'is evolved from a different kind of animal'A,there will have been intermediate forms B1,B2,B3,etc between'A.and.C.>>

see that a salamander is[B1,B2 b3,etc[within the species salamander] links prove nothing]clicked http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

chose

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran

[quote]>>>>General lineage":This is a sequence of similar genera or families,linking an older group to a very different?younger group...A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates forevery major structural change,...there are still gaps between each of the groups few or none of the speciation events are preserved...

..Why don't paleontologists bother to popularize the detailed lineages and species-to-species transitions?Because it is thought to be unnecessary detail.why waste valuable textbook space on such tedious detail?...>>>

why?
because that what it would take to validate it INTO a science[LOL]

AUG
Have you watched any of the David Attenborough documentaries? I just LOVE his documentaries and there’s a lovely boxed set out, “Live on Earth” I think it’s called. They're very educational and a pleasure to watch. *Poke poke*
So are RObert’s links.

I’m not really sure what your point is about the gaps in the evolution theory. Scientists are more than aware of any gaps- if they weren’t they’d have stopped digging and researching ages ago.
They don’t claim to have all the answers. We're lucky to have found fossils at all.
Everything that Darwin predicted has shown to be true, so far, even though we now can test for DNA, which could’ve disproved the lot. It didn't. Instead, it supported the evolution theory.

150+ Years of gathering evidence has made evolution very strong a theory. I know that some people don’t like to call it a ‘theory’ but a scientific theory is nothing like the every day use of the word.
The reason that the term ‘theory’ in science is used and is not called a fact is because ‘fact’ is originally a mathematical term, not a science term.
In science, a theory is build on a facts, tested and peer-viewed hypotheses, laws of physics, peer viewed papers etc- all these combined form the Theory.
It is a broader view of the observable world than facts are because facts are only part of the theory. This is crucial for creationist to understand because they claim that the evolution theory is ‘just’ a theory.

Re creationist teaching ‘ID’:
Science teachers already teach their students about any gaps- the gaps are part of the evolution theory.
Therefore it is totally unnecessary to have creationists point out to students that there are gaps. Real science teachers already are teaching them about gaps.
Both my children were taught about gaps at the local public school as part of Biology lessons.
Without the evolution theory, biology would make little sense.

A sock with a hole is still a sock.
Scientists seek to darn these holes in the theory with more research and evidence

celiva[see that as a child you were shown our ancestors EMERGED from the sea[but this is but one GAP to which science has not created a surity]

take the formentioned tikaalick[or whatever that finned thing]WITH NO WEIGHTbrearing shoulderblades,reveal your fish with shoulderblades![a very important step to stepping out of the sea[only kids could swallow that] but it gets worse

how about this un-namable'cow'creature that devolved back into the sea[an absurdity without proof[but the only proof offered is pretty pictures and links to nothing faulsifyable]

[then later we were told all will be revealed'[BUT IT NEVER WAS]those who went to 'higher'study got put into ever smaller specialities
[like our eucalyptus dude earlier]who isnt a complete botanist[nor evolutionist but an expert on eucalypt's ALONE]

evolution is accepted on our own volution,but its a delusion[check out the many gaps in an earlier link on intermediates]

EACH section has its gaps[CAUSE THEY CANT BE JOINED]but each in their own little compartmentalised SPECIALITY[box]to hold a faulse theory together [but as you again offer no facts there cant be any debate]BUT[you admit there are gaps]

im not intrested enough to proove to you the gaps refute the theory[just see where the gaps are[see the SPECULATION in between[but if you wont learn ALL the topic[or bother to explain your expertise personal knowing of it why should i]

im asking for those with proof to put it here

[what has been put up has been rebutted]i dont like rebutting nice people who dont realise they been fooled[my grandaughter swears santa is real,we are free to believe a theory[but not to lie that its science,that it is all,proved[it isnt]its a delusion for children

,but we grow up[or just remain like we all were]till we faulsifyed our own fact[did our own research[asked and sought our own answers]not just accept as a science a collection of known's[but with many more unknowns]

i know enough to know how much i dont know[but not so those decieved by evolution[who dares to ask question's be replied by these faulse gods[with a theory that has its feet stuck in clay]a not very sound foundation

Hello OUG, Eucalyptus dude here.

“[like our eucalyptus dude earlier]who isnt a complete botanist[nor evolutionist but an expert on eucalypt's ALONE]”

What an extraordinary statement. How on earth would you know what I am an expert in, or what sort of a botanist I really am?

You’ve just made a hard and fast statement purported to be fact, for which you don’t have a skerrick of evidence.

Well done!

{ :> |

hey ludwig good to seee you back i see your still only reacting [not responding] i assumed the not being a botanist thing because your best 'evidence' was cane toads and wild cats

[i figure were you a real botanist you would be able to describe botanical aspects regarding evolution[things like that remarkable siano bacteria that is a plant[but with the right input [manure] becomes an 'animal'

but you never expanded on your expertise [claimed expertise][and i missjudged you [so for this i apollo-gise] in my defense i will note one of your quotes
[yes there are more
[thus QUOTE

>>But no, I don’t think that ideology-induced blindness or sheer stupidity are incurable...<<

i sort of took that as was intended [personally]but you wernt finished

>>I don’t think we should for one moment just sit back and accept that a large portion of the populace suffers from these conditions and that a much more sensible outlook on life and our collective future isn’t eminently achievable.>>
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 22 November 2008 1:46:38 PM

anyhow no hard feelings?

NOW CAN WE HAVE THE FACTS
anything related to evolution
[or its root or its veryfiable fact based assumptions]

if using links point out what part of the link you believe relates to the aspect your asserting proves EVOLUTION.

what is your fields anbiogensis?
give me an intermediate
how many 'gaps' in botany
[you do a masters[where can i critique it?

anytime you need some discussion on the topic feel free[i dont take things personally] but i know the weakness inherant in a god less creation[there are many[but of course that aint the topic]

the TOPIC IS EXPLAIN your surity
[and i will explain why we shouldnt be that sure we wernt lied to] ,the theory is far from scientific, thus it remains a theory, and i just love being able to see if it can be faulsifried

cheers
come on bro give some science to underpin the evolving theory

just to prove my good faith

[i been yet again searching for proof of abiogensis or evolution] but so many of the links dont seem to work; anyhow here is some more to help you evolutionists out a bit

from
http://darwiniana.org/abiogenesis.htm

[quote>>and
Evolution

Links to our Past

News of the Present

Insight for the Future

Alfred R. Wallace
© Linnean Society of London

Abiogenesis—Origins of Life Research..>>

[note there is a graph here that begins with first life [it didnt copy] but check out the note as follows'

<<The period of abiogenesis is here represented by the words "First Life ?" It is not part of evolution.>> [lol?]

>>What Is Abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis is about the origin of life.

Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth.

Life origins studies proceed under a number of hypotheses and remain very tentative during this early period of investigation<<[lol]

so darwin cant help

so tried a few others

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-13101534.html

then came across a creation website[who are offereing a million bucks for anyone who can just come up with a theory!

''The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. is offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate that life could indeed evolve spontaneously''

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/life.htm

its no good to me
[i STILL rekon god did it] #

but darn isnt there an evilootionist who needs the cash
JUST FOR EXPLAINING their theory logicly

anyhow keep on searching[one day you all just might figure out how god did it[unless we extinct ourselves first]

“NOW CAN WE HAVE THE FACTS”

You’ve got to admit OUG that the contrast here is absolutely extreme. That is, between you drawing conclusions based on no hard evidence whatsoever and entirely on what you’ve read in a couple of my posts!

“i assumed the not being a botanist thing because your best 'evidence' was cane toads and wild cats”

My goodness! As well as all the evidence that I gave for eucalypts, I mentioned cane toads and feral cats. So that must mean I’m not a complete botanist. Riiiiiight!!

You drew conclusions based on practically nothing. In this case you’ve drawn totally incorrect conclusions. I’ve got no reason to think that this would be unusual for you.

And yet you demand not only copious evidence, but proof before you will reach the conclusion that every single person on this thread believes, except you.

That’s waaay toooo whacky for me.

continued

Heaps of FACTS in support of evolution has been presented on this thread. There are zero facts anywhere for the support of creationism.(Now that's a hard and fast statement of fact if ever there was one!)

If you want to dismiss the facts that I presented regarding eucalypts, cane toad and cats, and dismiss my comments on autogenesis, the go right ahead.

It is time for you to start questioning your own brain biases….and I must say; they appear to extreme - especially the manner in which you appear to draw conclusions over things that you want to believe compared to the total brick wall that you put up regarding things that you don’t want to believe, or perhaps won’t admit that you really do believe.

If you want to dismiss the facts that I presented regarding eucalypts, cane toad and cats, and dismiss my comments on autogenesis, the go right ahead.

Don’t get out there in your beautiful part of the world. Don’t go have a good look at a patch of strawberry gums. Don’t see if you think that each individual in a population is identical or whether there is obvious variation in the basic characters; leaves, flowers and nuts. Don’t even think of doing your own observations and then giving it some deep thought regarding evolutionary history in line with my previous comments. Don’t do anything except put up a complete barrier to it all in your own mind.

It’s no skin off my nose.

I don't really care what you chose to believe UOG. Where I do care is when religion is forced upon school children as in the case of Dover recently air on SBS as "Day of Judgement". Scientists were expected to provide volumes of evidence, which they did only to be told by the IDer's "I reject all of the evidence - I believe and intelligent designer did everything" - WITHOUT HAVING TO OFFER A SHRED OF PROOF.

Just as you are doing here. Much thought, research and consideration has been offered only for you to reject it all. On what basis? That god did it.

Evolution is more than fossil records, it is the basis for all our understanding of biology, botany, medicine and the relatively new sciences of gene technology and DNA.

We can observe evolution happening around us every day as viruses evolve immunity to anti-biotics to the longer term breeding of animals for specific purposes. Look at the difference between a dachshund and a great dane.

An interesting article on the origin of domesticated dogs is below showing human intervention in evolution:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2498669.stm

"Dogs today come in all shapes and sizes, but scientists believe they evolved from just a handful of wolves tamed by humans living in or near China less than 15,000 years ago.

Three research teams have attempted to solve some long-standing puzzles in the evolution and social history of dogs.

Their findings, reported in the journal Science, point to the existence of probably three founding females - the so-called "Eves" of the dog world.

They conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs."

What I also care about, UOG, is your cynical manipulation of many intelligent people participating in a game of your making. You were never sincere, I know this because your refutations on all that has been provided for your edification has simply been dismissed without any foundation or evidence on your part.

"God did it" is not evidence, it is superstition.

Fractelle,quote>>..teams have attempted to solve some long-standing puzzles in the evolution and social history of dogs<<

yes wolves canis[ie wild dogs]into dogs[canis]

this is in genetics called ancestoral wildtype][the pigions i studied has the blue bar rock dove[columbia]as its [+]wildtype[ancestor]yet all pigeons are[+]rock doves[and all dogs are[+]wolves]canis

its ALL in the canine or columbia genus,

Evolution postulates woles[canis]EVOLVED from something ELSE[something not wolf[canis]'evolving into a NEW species;not canus

NOT-canis into canis is what evolution postulates[IF canus EVOLVED from something ELSE,this something else can't be from the cannus genus,

see your being fed the same spin,mutations found WITHIN canis[the genus>species[C=c1,c2, c3 ARE all withing the'C'genus of canis]
#
not'b'evolving into'c'[just because we can lift one hundred pounds dont mean we can lift a thousand]

this is what evolution is decieving us about]

yes there is vairiation WITHIN a genus,but evolution postulates cannus CAME FROM NON canus
[that hasnt been proved[and cant be proved]
[what would be new is saying WHICH non wolf evolved the FIRST wolf, you offer no proofs]only a news opinion peace

what NON canis'EVOLVED'canus[wolf] ?
or what evolution from canus[dog]ISNT cannus[dog]

that NOT cannus link is what is needed to prove evolution![VIA the NATURAL selection DARWIN said reversion into wild type[a fact]take out HUMAN selection,THEN natural selection turns the breeds of dog BACK into its wolf ancestor[canis][+}[not cat;not a non canus]as witnessed wild cats returning to their'natural selection>[+]wild ancestoral type[genus]by being bigger than domesticaled[man selected] cats[genus feliness or whatever]

BUT if evolution,what cat[+F}became canus[+c]
or what boney fish became canus[fish breed fish[dogs breed dogs]its a logical natural LAW

WHAT NOT cannus;non wolf was UN-naturally selected[by humans]into cannus dog,MAN did not create a cannus genus,the NOT natural selection of canus created the dog[we are enjoined with our CREATOR]

[what did the wolf canis decend[evolve]from?[what non canus is its non mutant paternals?[that is what evolution is saying[despite only proof that like breeeds like,dogs breed dogs[cats dont]

understand the big picture of common ancestorial decent postulated as an evolutionary faulsifyable
points only to the natutral selector [god [not dog]

Dear One Under God,

Dogs, cat and humans all descend from a common ancestor.

We and other primates are decend from a smallish creature said to like a tree shrew.

Biologists have experimentally accelerated evolution by giving viruses to virsus. I think I might have mentioned this before? About wenty years back Scientific American produced a special publication (might have been outside its normal issue series) on how the human body could could be improved. If I recall, re-engineering our spine was one suggestion, correcting a compromise of being a biped, whose ancestors walked on all fours

Jeezuz, there’s a whole swathe of typos in my posts this morning, despite my 'religious' spell and grammar checks and multiple proof-reads. Faaaargh!!

My first paragraph should have read;

“You’ve got to admit OUG that the contrast here is absolutely extreme. That is, between you drawing conclusions based on no hard evidence whatsoever and entirely on what you’ve read in a couple of my posts….and your insistence on proof of evolution and autogenesis before you could possibly conclude that they are real!

oliver http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran scroll down to SUMMERY
note the gaps in ya theory?then http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html then http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

ludwig>>The geographic distribution..Miena-Cider-Gum;1600km2[area/occupancy40/50ha;known from five locations,three;contain approximately;50 mature,another approximately;500[and the largest approximately 1000 mature individuals]<<

RESONING[if it'evolved'[it would remain fairly much'in_situ'[for-rest's do'move'over time]BUT would[yet]reflect its'evolution'[if any]by its location[in situ'][By where its'species'are found[so it is very likely each[breed genus or whatever[type]should have a defined/limited,specific area{BUT}im getting run/arround seeking the_info[every-link seems to lead to csiro publishing or other book seller]/selective quotes but little real info,

BUT the info conflicts[see that if a tree evolves it evolves as one'evolution']but see below what is happening[in REAL-time]quote<<'..As the population has fragmented/the distance between mature trees within the sub-populations has increased,due to the death of many mature trees,rate of self-fertilisation is expected to increase and inbreeding effects are'likely'to be manifest in the population'>>....so here we have the inconveniant truths[IF this many eucalypts are having trouble surviving]NOW

HOW did one single mutant[evo-polution/mutant]survive?THEN[lol]

many perfectly healthy[acclimatised]addapted[evolved]trees have current viability somewhat reduced via a'natural selection'process LOL[human greed/need]#[read link]

QUOTE;'Inbreeding is expected to result in reduced seed set,and reduced survival and vigour of seedlings>>,HOW DID THE FIRST EVOLUTION EVER SURVIVE AS ONE[single]MUTANT?[one evolution]fighting for survival against its own parentals[and its non evolved fellow offspring[cant you see the insanity?

here we have many trees[living since evolving from the sea,as all life reportedly emerged/evolved from a single LIVING cell floating in a sea of non creationism natural selectivity;not to one new mutant but its[1000'S] of'evolved'children[if many cant do it[NOW}#how did one[do it then][lol],

but read again what is happening[NOW]

<<Seedlings of the Cider Gum(E.-gunnii)resulting from self-fertilisation have been observed to show inbreeding depression in the form of reduced vigour and survival>>[lol]how ever could that first/mutant have'survived[ONLY by gods_will!]

what E/gunnii EVOLVE from?what its parental'ancestor'type;natural/'selection'[or the last'evolution']?how did they ever survive before we came to'resque'them?[by gods_will alone;mans seems intent on destroying them all,because were thinking'they'can'evolve'themselves[lol]

[well'they'cant[thus'they'die]

thats why adam was tasked to tend_the-earth,we are our br-others protector's,not exploiters]by helping'them'realise how GREAT'they'can be]

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/e-g-divaricata.html

UOG
Error detected In [your] DNA sequencing of evil-lution.
abort( )…

Line: what E/gunnii EVOLVE from?what its parental'ancestor'type;natural/'selection'[or the last'evolution']?how did they ever survive before we came to'resque'them?[by gods_will alone;mans seems intent on destroying them all,because were thinking'they'can'evolve'themselves[lol]

Error, error, error

E.-gunnii did not spring fully formed from the head of Zeus .

E.-gunnii likely sub –population isolated –becoming more diverse over many centuries.

Think languages : not Tower of Babel ala all languages suddenly appearing fully formed from an insecure god. Think rather Italian, Spanish , French slowly evolving from Latin.

OMG! OMG! OMG!
Reprogram
Begin sequencing again.
Int main ( )
{ char*s+All is flux, nothing is stationary.”;

lord horus
press alt/restore

and a eucalyptus EXPERT will explain the origin of e-gunni
or at least explain what evolution it mutated from

or the one his peers conquer is'likely'to have been birthed be some random chance

science[sci-trance]is based on peer/revieuw[peers hate being ridiculed by their own peers]thus silence is better than being cast out of the sci-trance peer-age

the sci-trance of'evolution is full of gaps'but hush we dont want the kids to know this[our lawyers are on it,then we make a movie presenting the court case as validating our sci-trance,

when the court case really is only about schools daring to teach that the sci trance evolving theory IS WEARING a theory full of HOLES

age old promises that all will be proved[the gaps filled;so to speak],by decievers in their holy white coated garb,that mere believers in evil volutions creationisms by natural?selectivity or faith]call believable specificity[but stangly just cobbled together randon assorted faCT]

THEY WILL TRY to push the deception of evil-volution further with name calling and picking the questioner to bits,because they cant proove their theory is science

the white coated ones confused them as children[believing they can sell them its science,that belief in the sea murk they can sell them its scientific,

i present here a side note scratched in an ancient email[from the darwinian fossils peers addressed to lord santos[doing wonders sterilising their seed stock]

[as well as any who eat the poisend{SEED}feed or the stock,via the self same blind faith in sci-trance[that has gaps in its theory,no one is allowed to point out]

[loose quote]''we can give them the faulse santa clause,and we can sell them on slime monsters crawling from the primal oooze long enough to blind side them with childish links and theory long enough to destroy all life forms,[and their abilty to pro-create]life only god could create''

take heart normaility may never return
just look at the sci trance not the gaps[what gaps]?

the better con
is where to admit the con they would need to feel even more[moore]foolish than NOT to admit they we even conned in the first place

>UOG said:
>"the better con
>is where to admit the con they would need to feel even more[moore]foolish than NOT to admit they we even conned in the first place"

So, let me see, what you're saying is there is a huge conspiracy to hide the REAL truth about abiogenisis and evolution? Thousands of scientists are participating in this conspiracy?

>UOG said:
>"age old promises that all will be proved[the gaps filled;so to speak],by decievers in their holy white coated garb,that mere believers in evil volutions >creationisms by natural?selectivity or faith]call believable specificity[but stangly just cobbled together randon assorted faCT]"

Wow, who could have known? That's a doozy if ever I heard one!
Holy garb, faith, believers...hmmmm reminds me of another deception that surrounds us LOL.

For your interest, here is a really interesting interview between Richard Dawkins and Father George Coyne.

Father Coyne is a well respected, extremely likable, rather controversial Catholic scientist, and I'm sure we've all heard of Richard Dawkins.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,3410,Richard-Dawkins-interviews-Father-George-Coyne,Richard-Dawkins-RichardDawkinsnet

trickkerdee>>So, let me see, what you're saying is there is a huge conspiracy to hide the REAL truth about abiogenisis and evolution?

no im not dee
im saying its not science proven

see that you are seeing a forest[as an in-peni-trait-able jungle
i use impenetratable because no one can explain it here, thus havnt bother explaining why this jumble proves the forrest has no trees between them

[thus this jungle of science fact[is in actuality individual trees ,the forrest is called evolution] but its just trees [just a fossil here THEN A GAP then the next tree [etc till we get a lot of facts that look like evolution but are in reality just eucalypts and banksias and tulips and moss and animals , bugs deer etc

but the theory of evolution says its all just chance [just evolution]
but there is gaps in the theory

if i wanted to bias the question i would list them

reveal the GAPS between the facts,so you can see the wonderfull diversity isnt evolution[NOT va complete faulsifiable forrest based on a theory,not a science [the trees]

but i see why im not able to reveal the gaps between the trees

your quote>>your calling the forest a place where Thousands of scientists are participating in this conspiracy?>>

no im saying see how the science experts have been turned into tree

they are fixated their tree is part of the truth
when only
what they know
is the truth

there presuming a forrest
but cant see the forrest for the trees

see the trees/science groups encompasing 'evolution' have gaps in between
thus these trees [scientists] cant join what they know together

there remains gaps in between those wonderfull fact's they enjoy studing[because they are seeing only the forrest they the miss seing its for-rest.]

trikkerdee
seen a bit of your vidio link
so whats your point?

dawkins is making a vidio about darwin[whom i love]

my notes from the vidio follow
note dawkins face visable[not the priests to see if the long statement dorkins made is reflected in the priests micro facial movements
note first question wasnt about darwin

priest states he represents ONLY hois vieuw as church HAS NO DOCTRINE conflicting with evolution

SO WHAT I DO im seeing gaps in this theory

the church quote>>evilution is no longer a mere hypothesis.. note he avoids the word theory
I DONT

Q>>best scientific explanation does nor conflict with catholic teaching>> yeah but he is a priest
he studied religion

[i studied evolution [with a passion] because i love darwin
he revealed to me the trickery of judging a book [evolution] by its cover

he taught me all finches ARE YET finches[possav#bly decendant from a finch parental genome[that had all the traits encompassed into its FINCH genes[i dont know the finch line but darwind finches branch off it]

pigeons have a line based on the line liva ,all pigions ancestor was the dove[domesticated from the blue barred rock dove

same with wolves all dogs decended from an ancestoral wolf line
cannis breed canis, liva breed liva , finches breed finches

please be more accurate
what im looking at that is proof?
[or your point is ?[re which movie ?
where in the movie ?
[is that proof of ambiogensis or evolution] for which i asked this question of those able only to see one tree as a whole forrest[or a theory as a science

This is the full uncut interview with Father George Coyne which was omitted from Richard Dawkins' television program "The Genius of Charles Darwin" for Channel 4 in the UK.

The link posted takes you to the first part of the video, and depending on your set up, each segment should just follow on.

It has been done in 7 x 10 minute segments.

Try to watch them all if you have the time.

My point in posting the link was my perception that some of the conversation between Dawkins and Coyne (Atheist and Theist) is very similar to the conversation we've been having here...and thought it interesting enough to share.

And no, it isn't proof of anything, just an interesting conversation between two intelligent men.

You may or may not agree OUG but I hope you do manage to watch it all.

trikkerQUOTE>>This is the full uncut interview<< in;7 parts[lol]

evolution can hardly be validated by a priest]bro i watched all of it i need[if it is your proof for evolution PLEASE STATE WHERE

[in which part of this'uncut 7 parts'movie of hawkins[not steven hawkins a brilliant scientist[but this pretender fooling people with his clever selective targeting of non authority]

i have debated the topic with the dickkkdorkins dude 3 times[he deleted his losing debates[listening to his spin is more tedious than you can imagine

you guys think this retard is god[he is the jesuschrist of athiests evolving their theory[he has no proof

[in half the tape i watched]he barely touched darwin at all

darwin is closer to god than dickkk dorkins ever could be,but darwin didnt exploiate the facts to suit his theory[he confirmed his evidences,and they together didnt make a science,only a theory[and still dont]

at least have him explaining something[not him editing himself to look clever[as i said i dont care what the church doctrine is]doctrine is no proof

i have no need for opinion
JUST THE FACTS[validate the theory]


im not watching movies so the next retard[who also cannot prove evolution,either]can make some other suggestion that i refused to see'the evidence'there is no evidence to be had from a priest[only his opinion]look how desperate you are even quoting the link twice[yet refusing to state what part is evidential]

if you think its all evidential [your dreaming]do you have a written transcript[the future gos-spell for lord dorkins neo-con bible]

please present WHERE on this movie is the revelation that proves the theory of genus evolving is a science,STATE WHICH TAPE HAS THE EVIDENCE[and where it is to be found?

if your unable or unwilling to be specific please make no claim it[that a movie]is any REAL proof[a movie isnt going to cut it]you want movies?here is some i commented on earlier.

http://au.youtube.com/profile?user=HighFlyingDutchman&view=videos

reveal where and in what movie you need me to look,darwin also insisted on a faulsifyable,i faulsified in one of these movies
but im not telling you where[two can play the trick er
eh dee

OUG, All I can give is PROOF that you DONT read anything properly....having a conversation means you listen to the other person and then answer...I dont think you read anything properly you just like to rant at everyone, well carry on then.

I posted this in my last answer:

"And no, it isn't proof of anything, just an interesting conversation between two intelligent men."

I GIVE UP (throws hands in the air) LOL

OUG,

You want ‘proof’ that one species can turn into another, but have you considered that there is a collection of transitional fossils or intermediates and these are supportive of the evolution theory because they fall into the phylogenetic tree where they were expected/predicted to fit in?

If you want to learn more, you’d be better off to read some of the books recommended to you by others in this discussion than to listen to me or others on this forum who have limited knowledge about this topic.

Thanks for those videolinks Trickerdee, I agree that they fit in this discussion perfectly.

OUG, you keep saying that the evolution theory is ‘only’ a theory because you fail to understand that a scientific theory is not the same as an everyday theory. That’s exactly why Father Coyne avoided using the term ‘theory’: people like you don’t understand that a scientific theory is not the same concept as an everyday theory.
He uses the term ‘explanation’ so that fundamentalists will not misunderstand it. Father Coyne agreed with Richard Dawkins that is the best scientific explanation we have for our existence.
A scientific theory comes as close to the term ‘proof’ as something non-mathematical can get because a theory rests on facts, laws, and tested hypotheses.

“i just love being able to see if it can be faulsifried”
It can be, but hasn’t been falsified.

Don’t tell me that, after studying evolution for 30 years, you think that scientists claim that “the theory of evolution says its all just chance”.
Give me the name or ONE evolution scientists who claims that.

The evolution theory explains how a species can change into a different species over a very long period of time by gradual and accumulative changes.

celiva thankyou for your reasonable response[it all sounds so reasonable]

so lets talk about the dispute[intermediates]
is it reasonable that no intermediates SURVIVE?

going by the theory[i will keep pushing its a theory till it is proved science, while a priest may be bagered into stoping using the 't' word[im not bound by niceness[im a bread and butter'[only the facts maam]

i admit ape[pologies for not reading trikkers full post[i read enough to know he was giving no proof]and he picked the worst guy he wanted me to listen too ,dickk dorkins is so often quoted verbitum in these debates on this topic,but he dosnt do science[and to me sounds like a prat]but lets discuss the intermediates

who despite having an EVOLUTIONARY advantage[wrought by natural selection[whatever that means]has not managed to turn this ;natural advantage ,into survivability[not one lives today[yet its UNEVOLVED have survived just fine?[huh]

the list of inmtermediates must if it egsists as a matter of fact must out number the non mutated[yet by far the fossils recognize only extinct[non intermediates [and many more un'evolved'/unchanged in millions of years]

its like looking for a grey hair ,or a march hare ,the facts dont add up
[take darwins finches ,there are long beaked almost like a woodpecker ,but we know its geneticlly a finch[so say it was fossilised]we got no dna from fossils ,so just because IT LOOKS like an intermediate DOSNT MEAN IT IS PROVEN ,the non survivability natural selection offeres sounds so good

but isnt provable by EVEN one surviving{HUH?}

reveal the cat/dog],reveal the lisard/bird [the arroptrix£$%=] intermediate isnt the sought for intermediate dinosaur ancestoral for the bird]thus these gaps will remain,you would think a few had been filled in[reportedly we have quite a number of the 'bird thing'[but its not the intermediate]

re the scientist saying its all just'chance'[there too clever to come out and say it like i say it[they are more clever[use more clever words]

[they say'natural'selection,survival of the fittest,i call that close enough to chance[evolution happennd by some fluke [rabdom]mutation,i call that by chance]it certainly wasnt planned[because who planned it right?[lol]

Hi, OUG
“isnt provable”
Science NEVER generates absolute proof. As I said, “proof” is a mathematical term and anything outside mathematics does not really use the term “proof”.
A theory INCLUDES evidence, facts, laws etc but it is not proof in the mathematical sense. I wish you came to understand that.
If you deny evolution on the basis that it doesn’t use a mathematical term, then you might as well deny ALL that scientists have ever said because everything is ‘just’ a theory.
Why don’t you refuse all medication, vaccinations etc. because medical science leans on the same methods as other sciences?
Also, deny gravity because that’s a theory, too. Would you jump off a building just because ‘gravity is only a theory’?

“is it reasonable that no intermediates SURVIVE? “
It’s tricky, because if a species currently living has not speciated it’s not considered transitional because it’s at the end of its lineage.
It will only be transitional when it speciates…if it speciates.
For example, you might be found fossilised millions of years from now and scientists then may say, “we found a transitional species” IF the human population in the meantime speciated.
I mean- any parent species will become transitional after its population speciates.

You cannot look at a species currently living and know that it is transitional or not unless:
a. You have a crystal ball and can foretell the future.
b. It has been observed to have speciated already.
Only then it can be called a transitional species.
When a species speciates, the parent species would become a transitional species, wouldn’t it?

Continued

OUG,

Quite a few species have been observed that are in the process of speciating: therefore living transitional species are observed e.g. a salamander, Ensatina eschscholtzi.
It’s too much to discuss this here; you need to research yourself.
Google it if you want to learn more, e.g. search for “observed speciation events” or have a look on this site:
http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm
Or look for some books on the topic.

You dismiss Richard Dawkins by saying that “but he dosnt do science[and to me sounds like a prat”.
Why would you dismiss the opinion of a man who is an Oxford Biologist with two PhD’s and numerous honorary degrees?
You could learn heaps from him even though you find him a prat. There’s nothing to lose and much to gain if you listen to experts.

Keep in mind that evolving is about developing gradually over a long period of time.
Not, as the creationists claim, by sudden change or by chance. It's a slow process.

I probably won’t post here anymore- I hope you’ll find an answer to your questions.
You might, if you keep an open mind.

celivia [im not sure how to tell you
that salamander breed SALAMANDERS
FULL STOP

[i visited a few of the links off your links
quote
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

>>Rarity of ring species

There are few clear examples of ring species...it is unfortunate that few examples are known. At least 23 cases have been proposed, but most of them are not such clear examples as the salamanders and warblers.

Most of the proposed cases have major gaps{LOL}..populations.However, most of the cases have one thing in common:in one place,there are clearly two species,while in another area the boundary between species is difficult to determine..>>

2 species ONE genus
[=just like wolves/dogs are SAME genus

thus your saLAMAQNDERS ARE one salamander genus

[THIS IS STILL DEBATING SPECIATION OF SALAMANDER GENUS]
ie like wolves breeding into dogs
nothing proving EVOLUTION of one genus into a new genus

THE OTHER THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON IS BEING ALL SALAMAMDERS
[not evolved into say frogs]

THUS not evolution

>>To understand how evolution has produced the diversity of life,we need to study two fundamental processes:....Speciation usually takes too long to observe in one lifetime.

speciation,is more difficult to observe directly,primarily because it usually takes much longer than a biologist’s lifetime to occur.>>

as it is not reported on
it cant be used to prove a THEORY
but here is the report,[i also did vmy own searches]

see what is being SAID,dont just accept reports on your report
[here is the base report]
http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/wake/1986_Evolution_RingSpecies2.pdf

he makes no mention of it proving evolution
ps
you didnt point out which links prove species can change genus
cause they cant[i also revisited the human evilution darwin page again]they dont seem to mention lucy and neoandertol been rebutted[LOL,]why cant science rectify its own errors as it goes[failure to correct error[aint that suss?]

i also came across another statement[about how difficult it is to get info [too right]wonder why they being so secretive[they dont want anyone faulsifying its theory?

OK OUG, I’m going to do one more post and will leave you to it.
There are others who can explain better than I can. I am not a scientist, unfortunately.

So your main concern is macroevolution- you don’t deny microevolution.

Firstly, you need to understand that microevolution over a very long period of time can lead to macroevolution.
Macroevolution does not mean that there must be a big change in appearance. There are small and gradual appearances- like multiple ‘micro evolutions’.
Do some research on this very topic if you want to understand it better.
Scientists don’t even concern themselves with making the distinction between micro and macroevolution, as they see no barrier between the two. Macroevolution is more a creationist invention that they used to make it more plausible that all the ‘ kinds’ of animals fitted on Noah’s Ark.

Macroevolution is evolution just above the species level, so macroevolution includes speciation. There really are no limitations of mutations in DNA.
It’s like walking a mile taking small steps, not by taking one giant leap, but there is no limitation to how far you can walk, given enough time.

We see sister species evolve- for example two species from the same genus. E.g. you mentioned Darwin’s finches. These had evolved as different species within the same genus.
Aside from some changes (colour and beaks) they still look fairly similar.
It takes many millions of years and many, many speciation events before enough variation has occurred that accumulate to large changes from the original species.
The only difference is time- if you have a lot of time you can have more small changes than when you have little time.

Finally, I would like to refer you to anything on evolution by Ken Miller; perhaps you find it easier to listen to him than to Richard Dawkins.
He was one of the scientists debating the creationists in that Judgment Day court case I talked about earlier. Here’s a short video that I find interesting.
Ken Miller on Whale Evolution and Intelligent Design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

we will have to agree to disagree,i know god creation seems the lazy way of explaining it,but just life simply living[is this of itself not amasing]

we have this amasing'thing'called life[in fact thousands of types of life[if not closer to millions]of all these millions each cell division has a mutation rate[the average life form has at least v7'micro evolutions]

[one in two hundred cell-divisions has a malfunction[but this is no great big problem cause we got two chromosonal-strands[one from each paRENTAL]so phenotypical expression of the mutation isnt apparent

see that even with this massive[micro]mutation rate these micro evolutions are in affect of no affect[except in rare cases[thus we have a mortality rate for embryo's]

but geting back to the millions of living things[is it not strange we dont have one macro-evolution happening[in all the time science[and pre-science has been observing this wonderous interaction]

intelligent men have been arround for thousands of years[a sheep evolving into a goat WOULD have been noted[yet no trans-genus is recorded in all mans written history]

if inter/genus conversion[macromutation][evolution]were a valid concept with all the millions of'evolutions'living right now[any dog breeding a cat]would have been noted[but none egsists[in the past or the present]there are NO[living]intermediates between genus to be found[thus logic says i see no proof.

now we can report[speculate about it forever,but till it is recorded it must remain a theory]you know i been looking for a mere 30 years[but there are thousands spent their whole_lives looking[and by the numbers alone;not a single verification;THIS speaks for itself]

thanks for trying to explain the impossable[but even science has failed[they are just very good at passing-it-on to the next person[were they sure they would make available all the evidence[and allow it to be judged[their secrecy with the info]proves to me it has flaws[thus they prefer no-one reads it[unless they allready swallowed the lie]

i asked for proof[there isnt any]yes there is lots of facts that may allow it to be logically infured[but there is no factual/observances repoorted]thus there isnt an evolutional/science based on verified FACT.

all the best celivia

UOG

This will be my final post here as well.

You say things like 'dogs evolving into cats'; in a way this has already happened: the mammalian ancestor (the Therapsid - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsida ) that led to dogs, bears, marmots, cats and other similar creatures changed and adapted to cope with the changing environment. For example dogs hunt in packs and generally bring down larger prey whereas cats mostly (except for lions) hunt alone. They each have a part to play in the eco-system.

You also admitted: " ,i know god creation seems the lazy way of explaining it "

It is any easy way to look at the formation of live - evolution is long and complicated. I thought that maybe you would appreciate looking at a picture of the evolutionary tree - which shows life evolving from the most simple into more complex creatures - each one fitting into the eco-system that existed at that period of time.

http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg - please just click on the image to enlarge for easy viewing.

fractile from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsida

[edit] Taxonomy

[edit] Classification
Series Amniota
CLASS SYNAPSIDA *
Order Pelycosauria *
Suborder Caseasauria
Suborder Eupelycosauria *
Family Varanopseidae
Family Ophiacodontidae
Family Edaphosauridae
Family Sphenacodontidae *
Order Therapsida *
Suborder Biarmosuchia *
Suborder Dinocephalia
Suborder Anomodontia
Suborder Gorgonopsia
Suborder Therocephalia
Suborder Cynodontia *
Family Probainognathidae
Superfamily Chiniquodontoidea *
CLASS MAMMALIA >>>

thus we are talking about COLD BLOODED lisards?

>>Synapsids('fused arch'),also known as theropsids('beast face'),..
...Synapsids were originally defined at the turn of the 20th century, as one of the four main subclasses of reptiles,on the basis of their distinctive temporal openings....

PLEASE NOTE
google search hasa stopped working at this stage
[darn this real time monitoring]

i was going to proove the absurdities out

like lower at the abouve link it states [words to the affect of how this beastie ['evolves' into a mammel[the quote was going to reveal how the traits there after DONT MAKE MENTION of becoming [evolving into warmblood m,ammel [from a cold blood LIZARD[THAT IS A KEY MUTATION[IS IT NOT?]

also there is no mention of a shoulder blade EVOLVING that allows the ''l;egs to draw under to allow faster breathing [lol]
its all an absurdity [but goog;e wont google wiki pedia to reveal it FROM THEIR OWN QUOTES

why arnt we confirming these KEY CAPS[what was that cold blooded that becsame warm blood?
what EVOLVED the shoulder Blade

the order [is this the genus or the breed equivelent

how many know what those latin names mean[i have included two names
very scientific
looks like but spoken in greek means your smart ,its just like docters learn to nsame what they are seeing then using its description [in latin] to search for the cure for the symptom[skip the greek names [lets call a spede a aspade

see
spades BREED ONLY SPADES
once the species[and thus its genus DIES its extinct
no ammount of natural [or un natural random selection] will return it

believing it all can reveals the absurdity this theoryu is based on

It is to say the least illuminating that OUG demands verifiable evidence re evolution. And vehemently rejects evolution because a few of the pieces don’t quite fit. But then proceeds to swallow Intelligent Design holus bolus, though none of the pieces fit !

And it is illuminating to closely examine some of OUG’s arguments…

For example OUG says : “[one in two hundred cell-divisions has a malfunction[but this is no great big problem cause we got two chromosonal-strands[one from each paRENTAL]so phenotypical expression of the mutation isnt apparent.
see that even with this massive[micro]mutation rate these micro evolutions are in affect of no affect[except in rare cases[thus we have a mortality rate for embryo's]”

[Note how easily he dismisses genetic defects !]

Unfortunately the truth is a little more tragic .There are numerous genetic diseases/defects .
Many individuals have their lives tormented or prematurely terminated by such defects.
The hyper link below talks of 6% of children –hardly rare! And that doesn’t take into account diseases that show up later in life.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001587_pf.html

So what are to glean from this attempt at window dressing on OUG parts?
a) He has little knowledge of genetics.
b) He knows such defects reflect badly on intelligent design and is seeking to gloss over it–and hopes no one notices.
c) He’s a little shell shocked from all the buffeting he’s been getting.
d) All of the above

horus google mercury mutation,many of your fact's have been altered as we trust science too_far.

http://altmedangel.com/vaccine.htm
>>healthy mercury?

When it comes to other sources of mercury,they are extremely vigilant..mercury is particularly harmful to nerve cells,government health authorities have stressed that infants and small children shouldn't be fed these foods,and pregnant and nursing mothers should avoid eating tuna also...

..the EPA Environmental-Protection-Agency)has determined that the maximum allowable daily exposure to mercury is 0.1 microgram per kilogram of body weight,the new flu vaccine for babies,called Fluzone,contains 25 micrograms of mercury per-0.5ml dose.

Practically all vaccines contain mercury and aluminum.And vaccines are not"safer"sources of these toxic minerals.It doesn't matter if the mercury comes from fish or from a vaccine.The potential for neurological damage remains the same.

But for some reason,even though we're warned about fish consumption, vaccines and flu shots are strongly encouraged and,in many instances,even required by law.

more babies seem to be developing autism problems,and the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease is steadily increasing.[lol]

Alzheimer's linked to flu shots

In the year 2000,there were approximately 5million people in the U.S. with Alzheimer's,and it has become the fourth_leading cause of death in individuals over the age of 75.By the year 2010,it is estimated that over 7 million individuals will have the disease,and by 2025,22 million will develop Alzheimer's.As the general population continues to consume more contaminated food,water,and medicines,

One expert stated that anyone who had five consecutive flu-'vaccine' shots increased their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease by a factor of 10 over someone who received only two or fewer shots<<

but science is decieving us on so many more levels[it is easy to go along with the crowd[just because creationism is hard to concieve dosnt mean evolution is PROVEN]

[if SCIENCE prove IT[dont create distractions based on weight of numbers who believe[but have never tested the science][science hasnt replicated that god alone can do[yet fools accept it as fact]

both are theory[chosing one over the other dont prove YOUR right

live with it[or prove one is REAL science]
EVILloonitune fail its own faulsifiables

LEST WE FORGET the burdon science is placing on our mutation rate ; see how GMO is affecting the mutation rate at a debait right here at olo

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8283&page=0

where we have an agro-o-mist defending his right to put his acclaimed mutagin into our foods via gmo being put INTO the food chain

DONT think science dont have its own FAULSE gods]

just because the white coat looks clean dont mean science is good[god]

beware of scientists claiming they KNOW it all [they dont]
they just tricked you into thinking its proven WHEN IT AINT

logic matters[my logoic dont trust science
nor religion

i just put my faith in god[who if he dont egsist would yet turn out to be that FIRST life thar 'evolved' from the oooze[emerged FROM the waters]

that light[life] that preceeded 'let there be light'

now we have these faulse saviours scamming us from god;[that let there be science as a god ;moment [movement?]

if you got science PROOF present it HERE?NOW
as it hasnt been presented it there for dont egsist

[so reveal your proof[not your re-proof]
that aint proof
its opinion NOT SCIENCE fact

if you going to take the high ground at least reveal the 'firm ground' FACTS
[complete and full FACTS your standing on aint a sinking ship

google up 'AIDS from monkey serum'

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA%2CMEDA%3A2008-36%2CMEDA%3Aen-GB&q=aids+from+monkeys+serum&btnG=Search&meta=

or'frauds in science' 771,000 for science fraud.

sScientific fraud and the power structure of science,by Brian MartinScientific fraud and the power structure of science, an article by Brian Martin published in Prometheus,1992.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92prom.html

Global Trend:More Science, More Fraud - New York Times20 Dec 2005 ... A global explosion in research is outstripping the mechanisms meant to guard against error and fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/20rese.html

More science fraudMore science fraud. By Jonathan M. Gitlin | Published: January 19, 2006 - 01: 10PM CT. Scientific fraud is a topic that no-one in the profession likes to ...
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/1/19/2578

Amazon.com: Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud ...Amazon.com: Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud: Robert L. Park: Books.
http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud/dp/0195147103

Fraud in Science(Aaron Swartz: The Weblog)14 Mar 2005 ... That’s what most scientists will tell you about fraud in science. Science is magically self-correcting, fraudsters are isolated incidents, ...
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001616

Ruthless Science Fraud at the University of TorontoIn 1981 I began Ph.D. research at the University of Toronto. I walked into a trap: after five years, I was removed from the laboratory and the credit for my ...
http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/ruthless.htm

SCIENCE FRAUD;NPRA leading scientific journal is taking an unusual step today -- it is retracting three papers it published in recent years. Science magazine is taking the ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1050374

Chowk: Science: Fraud and Forgery in ScienceFraud and forgery is rare in the science world but it’s there.
www.chowk.com/articles/9466 - 30k

Science Fraud Shakes Stem Cell Field,LiveScience24 Dec 2005... Scientists fretted Friday that a spectacular cloning fraud that hid in plain sight has set back legitimate stem cell work around the world.
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_051224_stem_cells.html

the nobel?prize is perfect in being'sciences'highest? honour?
a bunch of fraudster's and shamers that cant even faulsify blatent lies.

[my link;READ IT/rebut IT]
http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/life.htm

>>Having presented the evidence ...it is'reasonable'to predict the finding of evidence for a'natural origin of life'.Such an origin would be consistent on the basis that the material makeup of life was of supernatural origin.

The evidence of the supernatural origin of life can be classified into three categories:1)law of science,2)law of probabilities,and 3]experimental observation.

The law of science that has stood the test of time being verified thousands of times[without exception since Louis Pasteur's swan neck flask experiment is the Law of Biogenesis

[This law states that,"Where a cell exists,there must have been a preexisting cell,just as the animal arises only from an animal and the plant only from a plant"(Biology,Helena Curtis,second edition,Worth, p.90).

The erroneous notion of life arising from non-living material is recorded as early as Aristotle's time[4BC.]Recipes exist for the fantastic,natural,spontaneous generation of mice from moldy grain,worms and beetles from dust,frogs from mud,and flies from rotting meat...

Surprisingly,in contradiction to the established law of biogenesis,spontaneous generation is still considered to be a valid tenet of current evolution theory.

It is commonly known as abiogenesis(life origin without pre-existing life),which is a field of research in evolutionary biology.The recipes are much more sophisticated,but the results are the same: nothing.

This is to say that in spite of millions of dollars,high tech equipment,carefully controlled research,and thousands of man hours spent on experiments to determine how life could arise naturally from non-living materials,not a single life form has been created.

To encourage competition and more intense effort into creating life in the laboratory,The Origin-of-Life Foundation,Inc.is offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate that life could indeed evolve spontaneously.

Amazingly,this demonstration only has to be presented in theory not experimentally.Following are excerpts from their web site at http://www.us.net/life/

"The Origin-of-Life Prize"(hereafter called'the Prize')will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life.To win,the explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical,kinetic,and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein,

and be published in a well-respected,peer-reviewed science journal(s)."

Thread 1[ Mutations]
-Starting point: OUG contends that mutations are ‘rare’ or innocuous:
“one in two hundred cell-divisions has a malfunction[but this is no great big problem cause we got two chromosonal-strands[one from each paRENTAL]so phenotypical expression of the mutation isnt apparent”

-Horus charges OUG has misrepresented the level of genetic defects.

-OUG responds with a variety of -yes but- apparently, it’s true that there are more defects than he first implied -but- it’s all the fault of scientists who are deceiving us, and poisoning us…
“LEST WE FORGET the burdon science is placing on our mutation rate” etc etc

[Note in a few short paragraphs OUG has moved from mutations don’t matter, to mutations are a major blight and -his favourite theme - it’s all the fault of scientists]

Crux: mutations have been with us since day-one; the mere existence on mutations casts doubt on -intelligent design-and tips the scales in favour of evolution.

Thread 2 [ Science is the domain of charlatans]
There is no doubt some scientists who are fraudsters. The core issue however
is not the character of individual scientists but the scientific method.
And the scientific method trumps divine revelation every time!

PS: Love the way you quote scientific authority when its has something to say which supports you crusade but reject it when it finds against you –I think we call that cherry picking!

Thread 3 [ Life]
“Where a cell exists there must have been a pre-exist cell…”

It’s funny OUG that you allow for something to per-exist ( and give it all sorts of wonderful attributes) if its called -god- but don’t extend that privilege to anything else!

OUG tell me, what are the -qualities -something must have to be classified as living

reply-point one[from]
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/fluctuation.html

>>..'mutation rates...Bacteria,Archae,and Eukaryotic microbes produce about one mutation per 300 chromosome replications'..<<

[thus MUTATION CANNOT BE RARE]as your body has trillions of cells[YOU alone have millionsof mutations in'you'][because of the corrective mechanism of having chromosonal-PAIRS,and that post'mutation/evolution'YOU are still the same genus]

>>Thread2?..Science is the domain of charlatans]There is no doubt some scientists../..fraudsters>>I AGREE<<And the scientific method trumps divine revelation every time!<<again i agree.

[YOU claim we evolved]it is up to YOU to prove[or disprove it]reveal YOUR own testing[i did enough to verify'evolution'is FULL OF HOLES[gaps]

what researches[breeding tests]have you done to verify the theory to be fact or lie?]none whatsoever?[you sir are an armchair theorist[do your own research]

YOU>>PS:..reject it when it finds against you..we>>[you]<<call that cherry picking!<<

the links you lot post are CHILD LINKS,generalities[give YOUR SPECIFIC'science'PROOFS,]if they egsist[they dont]i point out where in the link[you theorists say read the whole-link[and im the one picking cherries?[lol]

>>Thread3[Life]..you allow for something to per-exist...don’t extend that privilege to anything else!<<[PRE-egsist?]

your the one supporting a'first evolution'from the PRE-slime[from non-life]
dont missreprresent me[i love creation ONLY because god created it]personally life is cccrap[but i chose that by things like posting this topic to explain to those fooled by'educators']

im saying life from life[is what the-facts reveal]its up to you to prove your theory[dead makin life][lol]

>>..what are the-qualities-something must have to be classified as living<<

dear grasshopper;[life,is able to interact with things to ensure its own survival,able to pro-create,has preferances,likes,dislikes,is able to recognise its,self-type[sameness of its type]as well as different[think of my earlier description of the aemeba]it eats,it lives,it breeds,it dies

[then its spirit evolves into its next spiritual evolution[till finally it emerges as a tag named'horus'
[near the heights of incarnate self realisation]and[in time]accends into gods infinite heavens as a realised'sun'of god[to begin his own'let there be light'SUN/solar system]

see your'human'incarnation is near your final'evolution'[but you[must]confirm things for yourself[there is one god alone who knows it all]the rest of creation[ALL OF US]only have right[or wrong beliefs]and theories and adgendas]

BUT YOU CLAIM SCIENCE
[prove it]

FROM
http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/life.htm

QUOTE>>Evolutionists have proposed seven steps for the natural,chance,spontaneous generation[of life from non-living material..1.formation of monomers[2.formation/polymers[3.development of a meaningful code[4.Transcription of the code molecule[5.Translation of the code molecule[6.The appearance of the proto-cell[7.The appearance of the[FIRST]EVOLVED cell

Without exception,experiments[at eachof these steps have_failed..to demonstrate that such accomplishments can occur[by'chance'events''caused''by the'natural-properties'of molecules.

Contrary to the claims and expectations of evolutionists,origin of life experiments have[only]demonstrated:[1]the law of biogenesis is,credible(2)the probability of'abiogenesis'exceeds numerical possibility,(3)experiments have failed to produce products in natural simulation settings at all seven stages proposed for the alleged abiogenesis,and[4)evolution of life resulting from the natural properties of molecules[that;YET}cannot be generated even in intelligently designed and carefully controlled conditions.

The current...('evolution'as origin of life]...scenarios are untenable and the solution to the problem will not be found by continuing to flagellate these conclusions” H.Yockey;Information theory and molecular biology.1992...

..Nancy Touchette;“So far,none of the current theories have been substantiated or proven by experiment,and no consensus exists about which,if any,of these theories is correct.Solving the mystery may indeed take longer than the origin of life itself”(1993.Evolution: Origin of Life...

The'most'credible explanation for the origin of life is the creation model of intelligent,supernatural design.[It is consistent with the supernatural origin of the universe],confirmed by the law of biogenesis and the law of probabilities,[its predictions are demonstrated by thousands of daily experiments in the laboratory.

Insistence of a'natural'origin model in spite of the natural properties of molecules,their impossible chance of occurring,failed attempts to produce life in sophisticated and intelligently designed experiments,and in contradiction to the law of biogenesis is clearly irrational and unscientific.....Following is a summary of the Law of Biogenesis argument for the supernatural origin of life.

1.Law of Biogenesis:"Living cells come from pre-existing living cells."2.Living cells have never been observed to come from lifeless molecules.3.All attempts to create life in the laboratory have failed.4.Therefore,initial living cells must have originated supernaturally.5.The creation model conforms to the data.


[IF}Evolution proposes that life originated by means of the natural properties of molecules.[PROOVE IT]

evolutionary abiogenesis contradictsBASE}scientific law.[Models that contradict scientific laws are unscientific.Therefore, evolutionary abiogenesis as a model of origins is unscientific

UOG wrote:
Therefore,initial living cells must have originated supernaturally.5.The creation model conforms to the data.

Charles Darwin wrote:
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871, Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".

Thats what Darwin thought back then, and since then many scientists have been experimenting and documenting their work...go to this Wikipedia page to see many of them listed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

THEN, you can just put "god did it" at the end of the list, and you'll know where we all stand in the quest to find the answer to the beginnings of life.

So, IN REALITY, you've also got NO PROOF for your theory? Am I right?

thanks for reply trikkerdee,

easy to say i[we]believe for a reason[saying what'i'believe is science NOT FAITH
[but the fact is believing in evolution is by and large AN ACT OF FAITH[in science]

it has unreadable ammounts of'facts'[yet the sum-total of fact includes no faulsifiable science]
the theory is underpined with a basic premis that''all life''came from'one'cell[that'evolves'into everything living]''

so for me it boils/down to believing in'one'cell
[or'one'god]

i believe the god-theory for things[reasons]between me and my god[our god]when i hear of a new discovery in science i rejoice;.'how great god is'..to concieve such an amasing creature

i see a flower[knowing enough science to know that no scientist in any lab has EVER'made'a flower[yes they have micro-evolved halfbreeds/crossbreeds/mutations and other detail[either in its parental dna or from their crossed parentals]

but thats not'ambiogensis'of a real flower#[regardless BOTH are positions we have been taught to believe]FAITH postitions.

i learned 20 years ago much i.'thought'true isnt[research reveals up to half of what we believe is faulse[so i am aware half of what I think to KNOW is faulse]

BUT BY THE SAME MEASURE
half of what everyone else knows may be'possably'just as flawed'

what we believe about;santa-clause,easter bunny,johnkennedy,landing on the moon,911,have all been disproved,[google them up and test their truths yourselves]

BUT:[this isnt about what i believe[nor what you guys believe]

[BUT THAT WE REVEAL THE TRUTH ABOUT EVOLUTION]

that evolution put forward its science[IF SCIENCE IT BE],[im just faulsifying everything and finding we been lied to about so much,

but this posting is about one lie[im using this post to see what facts i need to faulsify]no-one has all the facts[yet those not studying the topic scince childhood dare to say im'cheery picking fact'they refuse to present

im not the sharpest'knife'in the drawer[but then i dont claim to be clever enough even to get evolution]

but many here claim they do
its time they explained it[dont you think?]

just the simple facts that fill in the gaps[in 100,000 years of human'evolution']dont you think we should be able to explain the full and complete/science fact

[if science fact it really be?]

<<just the simple facts that fill in the gaps[in 100,000 years of human'evolution']dont you think we should be able to explain the full and complete/science fact>>

Take the process of natural selection you can witness in any high-school science lab, and project it over millions of years.

Alternatively, reproduce a resurrection or virgin birth under test conditions and you might be taken more seriously.

What you're currently arguing is 2+2 = 4, but 2000000 + 2000000 = Jesus.

i was going to ignore your post Sancho[but it is so absurd i just had to remind you QUOTE:>>Take the process of natural selection you can witness in any high-school science lab,>>please reveal how oh half wise/half witted one

are you saying that natural-selection as demonstrated in school confirms abiogensis or evolution[or both]please explain what is revealed[by which school lab[by what natural act of selectivity.

selectivity is specific[natural is chance/luck[how can luck or chance explain evolutional specificty[survival of the fittest]indeed many of the theorised tennents of the evolutional or ambiogenesis theory

>>>and project it over millions of years<<.

it seems to me a needlessly long time for you to be in school[as even fools can reveal occasional wisdom,thus feel free to explain precisly how.

but i see you have a further witisism[ok half a whit from a half wit?]

>>Alternatively,reproduce a resurrection or virgin birth under test conditions and you might be taken more seriously.>>

funny how im not taking you too seriously,your confusing logic no doudt sees these events as proving something[but raising them as some convoluted proof of anything mearly reveals the other half of your half wittedness[as well as insulting those who believe such things]

i suggest you post it as a topic if its a real question[i have no opinion either way,but even if i did HOW WOULD THAT CONFIRM your theory?]

but there is more from your half wittedness>>What you're currently arguing is 2+2 = 4,>>

see your getting it[even a halfwit sees im offering a 2 plus 2 deal here]but i note you havent finished proving your half wittedness yet[as well as LACK OF ANY REAL PROOF of evolution or ambiogensis]

>> but 2000000 + 2000000 = Jesus.<<

[is this xtian thing a fetish for yours?]if this has any relivance to the debate or is some spot math question?it is not any proof for evolution[or if it is remotly proof of something to prove your evolving theory;please explain

do the numbers have any relitive proof for anything other than your stupidity[please feel free to explain]
,

interesting the[earlier]links[that i been using to reveal the HUGE gaps arnt available]anymore
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran


[there's plenty more[by their-deeds will you know-them]

quote from
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm
>>Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links,most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record,with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species."(Schwartz,Jeffrey H.,Sudden Origins,..

"...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."(George,T.Neville,"Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,"

"Despite the bright promise;that paleontology provides a means of seeing evolution,it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of'gaps'in the fossil record.'Evolution'requires'intermediate/forms'between species[paleontology does not provide them."(Kitts,David"Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-invertebrates

Within the evolutionary sequence of events,the mechanisms that made the changes are not known,and they cannot be known...,the lack of testability and repeatability demonstrates how this subject lies in the realm of historical science,if it is science at all.

Unicellular organisms cannot produce more than one type of cell.In order to become a multicellular organism,new information must be available that tells the cells to develop in new ways to perform different functions...

The source of this new information cannot come from random mutations[as discussed in Chapter 3), but even if it could, a multitude of new functions must be simultaneously added to the genome..

..The hormonal-control of development and cell-coordination must be present with the information to code for the hormones and new cell structures...those old hormones and proteins must still perform their original functions or the cell is not as fit and would be removed by natural selection.

Search for'missing links'..is..fruitless,because they probably never existed

http://evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a17b2.htm

just see how EVOLveD the flagelum is[noting all parts of it NEED to evolve at the same time
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html



here is an egsample that oversimplifies the problem

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IICgaps.shtml

gaps in'horse'creatures isnt the'real'problem[but its what they feed you],to cover over the importance of'gaps'][cold into warm-blood]SEE YOUR BEING CONNED?



here is another of your'faulse_gods'covering over the cracks

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/gaps-in-evolutionary-theo_b_6606.htm