Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

I think you are going to have to more clearly define what you mean by "ordered working information" (considering a google has never seemed to have heard of the term) and then clearly state examples of this other than man-made things. If you can. And then explain why it has to be a caused strictly by intelligent design.

I never said "it might not always have been that way" I never even implied it. I don't think that the way things work has changed much over time, just that our understanding of the way things work has. And I clearly understand they difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. Scientific fact needs to be observable and repeatable, and obviously at the creation of our existance no one was there to take pictures...

But really, The only one who seems to understand you here is yourself. I am not exactly sure what point you are trying to make, and how it makes evolution unscientific and creationsim much more viable. I would also like to hear your scientific credentials, so we can know how seriously to take your opinion when you are saying something as ludacris as evolution not being scientific.

When you get onto something, brocktoon, you certainly don't like to let it go until you have made youself seem as ignorant, illogical, and thick-headed as an individual can be...

 

OK Sera.. You asked for it.

Even though "Complex, Working, Orderly Information" should be fairly self-explanatory here are a few links explaining this further:

[Oh. and these are written by people with lots of Letters after their names]

http://www.santafe.edu/

http://necsi.org/guide/index.html

http://www.complex-systems.com/about.html

And my personal favourite:
http://www.iscid.org/complex-systems.php

There are many more of course, but those give you the basic idea.

One thing you can do all by yourself....

Look around your world for ANYTHING which 'has this stuff':

Working Order: Stuff is done in some pattern towards some purpose.

Complexity: Stuff that not only has LOTS of 'things' but where those Things are all related to and for each other.

Information: Stuff which can 'Tell other Stuff' what to do or tells other stuff important stuff to help it do more stuff. This might be 'words' but it could also be 'Codes' and even 'Symbols' or even 'Beeps'.

Now you can do this yourself at home!

Ok here is the really fun part Sera.... find out if you can learn how this stuff was MADE?

(If you dont know the cause - then it wont count ok)

Did the Wind make the Stuff?

Did a Machine make this stuff? (In that case see if you can find out what caused the machine to do that)

Did some beavers make this stuff?

Ok.. now once you have found out that some 'Designer' ask yourself this:

"Hmmm since all the other working ordered and complex information I see is caused by 'Authors' or 'Designers' - I wonder how THAT STuff was made?"

Yay!

 

So, in other words, Sera has harmed Brocktoon's ego. Sera too, but is able to mask it in maturity.

I won't bother to read the context of you guys' ramblings, no doubt about claims that the world is really complex and that necessarily implies the existence of God. I will assume the links Brocktoon has provided are full of unfounded assertions and presuppositions, perhaps by accredited scholars, but equally susceptible to the desire to live on after death and then just as likely to make the case for faith.

Perhaps I am an atheist elitist, or maybe just reeeaaallly tired of this thread --- Evolution occured and too perhaps so did the Big Bang --- in any case, Creationists: you must adapt to reality. Realize that God created the Big Bang, it is equally unsusceptible to rationality.

 

So you are basically stating that you will accept Evolutionist Theory 'As Fact' and there will be NO discussion.
Further to that - you will not even entertain or grant validity to anything which questions it.

Good for you Thumotico!

I dont think I could have that kind of Faith!

 

PS.. I had heard there were some people still holding to the 'Big Bang' Theory.
It seems you are one of them.

Must be getting lonely over there in the 'Big Bang' Camp, what with all the Scientists leaving nowadays?

 

Brockton,

The scientific method is not conclusion through analogous obsevation, as you state.
You need to go back to square one. Your 7th grade science teacher would give you an F- for such a badly distorted description. This misinterpretation is why all your arguments are pure crap.

As for having rendered your arguement moot, that Is exactly what has been done here.

You really need to grow-up and admit defeat
-----
Why is it you feel you need others to approve of your religion? Are you than of so little faith?
Wheather you act from pure ignorance or malice, I cannot say. But the insistence with which you cry for outside justifacation, coupled with your attempts to misconstrue and misinform others in the name of some holy crusade of ignorance and stagnation, leaves one to wonder if perhaps you are a member of the Bush administration!

 

I do NOT accept anything in this objective reality experienced subjectively-invariably to be FACT. However, it is infinitely more likely that evolutionary theory is MORE accurate than Creationist theory.

Furthermore, scientific and metaphyical beginings have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread hence my desire to end the discussion, which could easily be done by not looking at this thread I suppose. But discussion of other things is desired.

The likelihood of creationism by a sentient being is as likely as a pink elephant defiling a log and thus inacting an equally bizzare means of initial life. However, not accepted by the majority of society it holds the same basic ideas--- something we cannot begin to understand in THIS life created the human race.

 

You have completely misused the word 'Analogy' [ironically, making your analogy about grading deliciously funny]

'Analogy' has nothing to do with anything discussed or proposed here. Where you even got that idea is bizarre.

Yes, Science uses 'Controls' as well as repeatable, observable events by which to find the cause of an unknown event.

Since you want to use the word Analogy - here IS one:

Say some Scientists find a black, sooty and smoke filled room somewhere.

They do not actually know why its black and smoke filled. No one was there to see what caused this.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD:

Scientists Oberserve that FIRES can cause the exact same conditions.
In fact, they can even re-create FIRE in a lab example and repeatedly get the exact same results as that mystery building.

They then 'conclude' based on what they know - FIRE is the most likely CAUSE of the Blackened, Sooty Smoke Filled Room.

Then Sera Michele arrives to announce that 'That doesnt mean ALL smoke must be created by FIRE!"

Then Geckopelli shows up to inform the Investigators that their comparison cases are only ANALOGIES (LOL!) and they are not 'SCientific!"

 

Maybe one day you can explain why you have decided that Evolutionisms Creation Myth is MORE accurate than Creationist Theory.

You seem to be just showing up to inform us you have already made up your mind - but you are too 'weary' to bother sharing why.

Please feel free to post your ideas or 'other things' at Hipforums.

Simply interjecting your disatisfaction every so often and reminding us you like other stuff more is not helpful to anyone.

Simply comparing a concept to a ridiculous and childish concept does little to help anyone.

Let me try and see if it works for me:

"Thumbontico is just as likely to create an intelligent statement as a Monkey defiling a pile of leaves would create such an equally valid statement"

?

Nope that wasnt really helpful. In fact its nothing more than a 'Flame' with no other purpose than to insult.

We Disagree.
It seem more and more apparent to me that this generation is closer and closer to understanding the mysteries of Creation than any other time in history.

 

Ooo aren't you sassy...

So what you are saying is that the FIRE (evolution) caused the blackened appearance (life on earth) and then Sera Michele (Brocktoon) came and said that the perfectly reasonable explaination of FIRE (evolution) did not necessarily cause the blackened appearance (life on earth), in fact it could have been something else (God) and since it could have been something else (God), it definitely was. Then Brocktoon (Brocktoon) entered the room and realized he proved himself wrong?

 

Best wishes to your fragile ego...

This is the only selection I find reasonable enough to respond to:

This is the day.

Scientific evidence strongly supports evolution. That is scientifically probable explainations of the initial creation of amino-acids can be explained through scientific means.

The creationist theory (to my understanding) is that one day some ineffable being created the heaven and the earth. That is by some metaphysical occurence that, is clearly beyond the comprehension of man, the reality of which I am presently percieving was created.

So I have two theories here. One that is supported by the sciences of this reality that I am percieving and One that has no explaination at all [simply that it happened].

Beyond my disbelief in God, a priori to me, one is left with these two possibilities. That a scientifically probable explaination is more likely or an epistemogically unfounded, unexplained, metaphysical process of God is more likely.

Furthermore, the realization that there are not merely two possibilities endorses the fromer theory. There are many different religions that have different explainations of the creation of the world, not merely the Christian Creationism and Evolutionism.

Essentially, in no way, its entirety.

 

Brockton,

Your propensity to make-up new definitions to established words and accepted terms indicates you may have lost your anchor in reality altogether.

So for the sake of your mental health...

Boy, that brockton really showed us! He brought down the entire scientific establishment, as well as redefined some of the dictionary! Man, do I feel silly wasting all those years on education when all I had to do was consult an un-educated high schooler!
Just think of all that research over the last 300 year- a waste of time. Magic was the answer and the explanation all along!

 

Thumontico.. Dont worry.. I dont even believe there is an 'Ego' anyway, [although I do like some of Freuds ideas.]

I do not agree.

Please tell me your logic is not circular though?
You believe Evolutionism is 'Scientific' because it 'IS' Scientific, therefore it is Scientific?

We had this guy called Geckopelli who ran that hamster-wheel to death.

I recall a researcher claimed to have done this back in the 1950's.
Although it was never accepted by the rest of the scientific community (on the whole) it quickly became something of an 'Urban Legend'.
So much so - that numbers of experiments were done just to demonstrate it was NOT true.

If you know of some new way (and Im sure you dont) please throw me a link to it.
If not, then I suggest you are mistaken.

So far, we are only stating that it must have been an Intelligent Designer.

Maybe you think it was Many Aliens or maybe you say it was Allah?

We start by looking at what (based on reason and knowledge) must have been the Cause.

Evolutionists are stating that it 'Simply Happened'.
This IS their belief.

Creationist also state that it 'Happened' but provide a reasonable explanation based on the observable reality around us.

Ok. Again you are doing nothing here but make more lame insult comments.

You are once again Stating Evolutionism is 'Probable' simply because you say its Probable, 'therefore' its 'Probable'.

Everybody is a Creationist.

Geckopelli believes the Universe was Created.

Evolutionists also believe the Universe was created. They just insist it happened ONCE by ACCIDENT and then 70000000+ MORE TIMES, DAY AFTER DAY For MILLIONS of years.

(We like to call this 'Less Probable' than the theory proposing it happened ONE TIME)

 

geckopelli DOES NOT believe the Universe was created.

stop puting words in my mouth, you ignorant fool.

 

" recall a researcher claimed to have done this back in the 1950's.
Although it was never accepted by the rest of the scientific community (on the whole) it quickly became something of an 'Urban Legend'.
So much so - that numbers of experiments were done just to demonstrate it was NOT true."

A flat lie.

I already layed you to rest with a more detailed description of these proceses.

Your an ass brockton- you're just making shit up now.

This forum is for discussions of facts and opinions, not your need to complusivly lie.

 

Its hard to 'Not' put words in your mouth when you say pretty much anything that 'sounds' like you are 'trouncing' something.

In anycase, I should have said 'All that is IN the Universe'

Or knowing you.. 'The WAY all that is IN the Universe is now assembled'.

Maybe I should brush up on your ground-breaking theory .. err.. Equatics was it?
That thing was CLASSIC!

 

You were not refering to the same unfounded rumour that Thumbonitca was (probably) refering to.

Having said that - your description was definatley NOT 'Detailed' and did not even describe a 'Process'.

You simply asked an open-ended 'Why Not' Question and made bizarre presumptions for Creationism.

Then you admitted you've never heard of New Genetic Information being observed to appear.
You then admitted that dont know of any way it happens.

Then you repeatedly 'announced' I had been 'Vanquished'.

 

Had to post you guys this article snippet in hopes it will clear up some misunderstandings (some) people here are having regarding the Theory of Evolution.

This btw takes us directly back to the actual topic. Darwinism.
Darwinism DOES NOT work and is NOT the belief system of Evolutionists anymore.

the quote from biophysicist Dr. Spetner explains why mutations DO NOT add information - but are known to REDUCE information. (The OPPOSITE of what Evolutionists believe 'must have happened' once upon a time when, they believe, laws of biophysics 'must' have been different)

Geckopelli.. Could you please read through this and tell me if you agree with Dr. Spencer?

If you disagree - Why?
========================================================
Even if we grant evolutionists the first cell, the problem of increasing the total information content remains. To go from the first cell to a human means finding a way to generate enormous amounts of information—billions of base pairs (‘letters’) worth. This includes the recipes to build eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscles, blood, etc. In the section on variation and evolution, we showed that evolution relies on copying errors and natural selection to generate the required new information. However, the examples of ‘contemporary evolution’ presented by Teaching about Evolution are all losses of information.
This is confirmed by the biophysicist Dr Lee Spetner, who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University:

In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased. … But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.


All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.

The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.[size=-1][17][/size]


​

This is not to say that no mutation is ‘beneficial,’ that is, it helps the organism to survive. But as pointed out in previously, even increased antibiotic and pesticide resistance is usually the result of loss of information, or sometimes a transfer of information—never the result of new information. Other beneficial mutations include wingless beetles on small desert islands—if beetles lose their wings and so can’t fly, the wind is less likely to blow them out to sea.[size=-1][18][/size] Obviously, this has nothing to do with the origins of flight in the first place, which is what evolution is supposed to be about. Insect flight requires complicated movements to generate the patterns of vortices needed for lift—it took a sophisticated robot to simulate the motion.[size=-1][19][/size]

 

Brocktoon, you are like the evil guy poking his lying opponent with a stick while being down, meaning you have won this battle[according to ME] along time ago, it has started to become quite boring acually -this is the first time we ever seem to agree on something, interesting and scary-.

 

Cabdirazzaq

So you agree with brocktroon, that evolution is false....

Even though occam has propossed that EVOLUTION
Is gods way of creating. And you cannot say it is not.

No-one can....
Evolution...Is now religions great hope....
For IT IS THE LAW OF GOD. It is 'creation' by any other name.
[that smells just as sweet]

Occam