vanna

it is nutty to apply entropy overwhelmingly to geological or biological events or situations, especially big events or long-time ones.

The underlying theme in the theory of evolution is NOT that everything fits neatly into place through accident or by chance.

To say "this negates having to look deeper" is mind-numbing.

The 747 1,000-plus pieces junkbox/junkyard analogy is pathetic

I hear you, Oliver.

I think it’s a testament to the fact that creationists simply don’t want to know.

Dan,

<<The reason the design issue is not dead is that a lot of people see that design makes more sense in light of the evidence than undirected mutation and selection.>>

Undirected mutation directed by natural select.

Seriously, Dan, I’ve told you that close to ten times now.

<<...largely because the ID movement is not aiming for a Christian theological position. They do not seek to ground their investigations in any particular doctrine.>>

That’s exactly right.

And the reason for this was to sneak religion through the backdoor and into science classes when the US constitution forbade it.

<<[Detectives] may ascribe the [buried knife] to an intelligent agent even without knowing the identity of the person.>>

That’s because knives don’t bury themselves.

But chemicals can arrange themselves, genes can mutate by themselves and nature can direct the mutations by itself.

<<Regarding your 4th dot point, good science does not depend on naturalism.>>

Yes, it does.

Science only deals with the natural world because we have no way of distinguishing between something that transcends the natural world and something that doesn’t exist.

<<With regard to evolution and ID, you say that if one theory were to be disproved then this would not vindicate the other. If so, could you mention this to Michael Zimmerman? For that is what he argues in the 2nd paragraph of his article.>>

Zimmerman does no such thing.

There’s a difference between an argument being for something while against another, and claiming that something is true because the other is false.

Vanna,

<<A cell is a closed system surrounded by a membrane.>>

Wrong.

A cell accepts energy and nutrients from external sources, so it is not a closed system.

<<The cell should be decaying and decomposing...>>

No, because it’s receiving energy and nutrients from the sun and food.

<<...and sunlight can aid that process.>>

Only if it’s dead.

<<To prove this, just leave your salad sandwich in the sunlight.>>

Continued...

...Continued

The salad in a sandwich no longer has the root systems and earth required to continue living.

Your analogy is totally invalid as well as completely asinine.

As for your questions, you again show your ignorance. McReal has saved me some effort in responding here, but if you could provide some references to where the evolutionary answer to your questions is “by accident”, then I’d be most grateful. Especially after this whopper in your post to McReal: “The underlying theme in the theory of evolution is that everything fits neatly into place through accident or by chance.”

<<I have also never heard that abuse (such as your calling people “ignorant” if they disagree with you) is actually a part of the scientific method...>>

Neither have I.

Pointing out that someone is ignorant is not abuse, ironically this amounts to slander due to the false nature of your accusation.

You can choose not to be ignorant about these things but you choose otherwise - and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

<<...but maybe this is done to hide the flaws and gaps in the superficial theory.>>

Bold words for someone who has so far failed to point out a single flaw or gap.

<< But to prove that abiogenesis works, buy a TV set that is in 1000 pieces. Put all the pieces in a box and shake well. After many years of shaking, all the pieces should align and fit together, and you will now have a fully functional TV set. >>

The parts of a TV are inanimate objects that don’t have the same bonds as the building blocks for life.

Your analogy is, again, totally invalid as well as completely asinine.

You’re not having much luck here, are you Vanna. No Matter. The longer we press on the closer the probability of you getting something right must surely be approaching 1.

In the meantime though, I’d like to thank both you and Dan for helping myself and others to demonstrate that creationists not only don't understand science, but don't want to understand it either.

Oliver<<Are we composed of inorganic material? Yes/No?>>that is the point...just because there is in-organics..CANNOT MEAN minerals=life

the absurdity of<<Life is inorganic material,>>>IS nuts..[take a courps...ALL THE SAME//organics/plus inorganics...yet NOT..NO LIFE

sure iorganics..<<that has been orgainised,>>>but iorganised by what...what is this natural...doing the natural selecting

<<improbable perhaos,..but not impossible.>>ok mate make life from all your minerals...lol..[look at a LIVING sperm..entering a LIVING ovum...[both are living entity...not minerals]

After-all,..we are here!..LIVING...because..life gave their living to us..[life comes from life...this is a thing science cannot refute[if you claim it do...well present your..EVi-dense

<<relationships between temperature changes..and genes..able to produce mutations;exrays...>>gout medicine as well..[but the point being many mutations...BUT ALL RANDOM...

its not a predictive/science...this dose..does not do this/repeatedly.....[sure it creates sports/mutation..usually via crossover...because the exray...broke the dna strand..ditto using micro-waves

<<changing water into wine.>>i have repeatedly explained..how this has been miss-represented..[but only a servant can/get it..[the servants served/their masters..BEST WINE...[saving the masters face]

see that you..would not drink/or allowed to be served...even the best wine,,,that came/from a toilet...ditto the handwash jars..

[as jesus said...it is nought to do..with me/its not my time/turn..[he said so what...i dont care..if you give them that/dirty/scummy/handwash water...get it?

<<Scientists adjusting their theories is good.>>great...science does...but those...HAVING FAITH..in them dont realise that...thus have been decieved...into thinking its science fact...yet its only THEORY...unable to be scientificly faulsified..or replicated in science conditions...thus fraud

<<we carrying inheritances..that go back/three billion years,>>3 billion years..of life/comming from life...lol..get it?

<<we were related to bacteria.>>please give your proof....reveal the trans genus LINKS...that are all missing...[what EVIDENCE YOU GOT OF NEW GENUS...[6 theories...missing links...and thousands missing...and science HAS NEVER WITNESSED ONE FIRST-HAND...NEVER EVER RECORDED AN OBSERVED/change of genus

<<Energy created in.."closed" systems>>yet another science DECEPTION...

define energy...E=MC2...means energy...IS..[equals]..lol..
mass/times the speed of light/..times the speed of light...LOL...
only fools..can believe that is science...lol..yet more theory

Dan

I didn’t say that ID and evolution are not rivalrous, only that they are not competing scientific theories. Evidence of evolution is evidence against ID, because ID makes particular claims against evolution; but evidence against evolution would not be scientific evidence for ID, because evolutionary theory makes no claims about god.

You say defining science as entirely naturalistic begs the question , and I think this is the core of our differences. I believe scientific method must by its nature preclude supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. If it were the case that some phenomena are a product of supernatural divine intervention, then the question of their provenance would cease to be a scientific question and become a theological one. I appreciate how that seems to you begging the question, as my understanding of science precludes yours by definition. But I do not think my understanding of science is unreasonable or unusual.

I do not preclude theological reflection on nature or even a theology of the divine in nature, merely one that sees God’s role as supernatural mechanic. Equally, I don’t see naturalistic/scientific investigation or understanding of our origins as precluding a theological one.

The different between the two is explored most interestingly by scientist-theologians such as Peacocke and Polkinhorne. Their views are in some ways similar to ID in that they perceive evidence of a divine mind behind creation, not in the sense of denying evolution or arguing for “irreducible complexity”, but in the beauty and symmetry of the underlying organisation of the universe, and humanity’s connection to it. We, and the world in which we live, are the products of certain characteristics of the universe that interact in multiple ways to make our existence possible. They see God’s creativity in nature, not supernatural interventions in biological processes. Scientific and theological understandings of human origins are hence not mutually exclusive. I'm not 100% convinced by these arguments, but they seem to me more nuanced and rational than ID as usually presented.

Oliver,
I fully understand that we are here, the question is how.

Processes such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration are not mutations. They are a sophisticated series of chemical reactions that require the right enzymes and energy transfer mechanisms throughout the reactions.

These processes are fundamental to life, but such processes are not covered by the theory of evolution that only considers traits and mutations, and the theory of evolution is simply too lacking.

McReal,
I have a question for you. Is it a part of the theory of evolution to carry out abuse and insults of others, (eg use of words such as “nutty”, “pathetic” etc)?

A J Phillips,
Roots and leaves are formed from cells. They don’t just happen.

But here is an experiment to test the theory of evolution. Form a cell membrane, and place inside various elements. Now supply energy and agitate, and wait for a required protein to form by chance.

Without proteins there will be no cell or organism to carry out your evolution, and if the protein does not have the correct physical structure, then it is useless to an organism and may actually harm the organism.

But there is a problem. If the cell membrane ruptures while waiting for a required protein to correctly form (and this could take many years without the right enzymes), then the contents of the cell will drift away and you no longer have a cell.

So you have to make sure the cell membrane lasts until a required protein with the correct physical structure forms by chance.

You should be able to do all that because you are not ignorant. I also have a question for you.

Is it a part of the theory of evolution to carry out abuse and insults of others?