Robert Tulip wrote:The values of science include a commitment to logic and evidence and facts, to basing opinions upon observation, to be willing to change when proved wrong. These are all what ant dismisses as "values". Behe and his friends reject these values in favour of medieval patriarchy. That is the real covert agenda of creationism.

I don't think it's logical to think something can come from nothing.The eternal existence of the universe doesn't make much sense either and is contra indicated by the standard model.
These theories are extrapolations from what is not observed. Bacteria stay bacteria no matter how many times mutated. Any speciation that is observed is still the same essential creature whether a bird or a plant. Finches stay finches.

What we should observe but don't are the myriad intermediate creatures leading up to the Cambrian ones.Could it be they never actually existed? Unthinkable! There must be a naturalistic explanation.Not only are these missing but a realistic explanation for the necessary genetic information to produce these is also missing.
You believe abiogenesis occurred because it's the only possible naturalistic explanation, and not because it has ever been observed to occur and you think dumb matter can create biological information. Abiogenesis is fraught with problems which anyone looking at it honestly can see.
It's consistent with theism that God could direct natural processes or create directly. building natural reproductive systems in.
You are very big on conspiracy theories Robert which just seem to fit whatever you want them to.
People who dissent can just be dismissed as nuts and we are told all is well with the scientific enterprise. Computer program designers see a big flaw with the idea of mutations being a creative force or generator of new or improving information in any real sense.
But that's o.k there are no scientific objections to the theory and those who may think otherwise are just nuts.
I think my butt which you say I'm talking through was intelligently designed, and your brain which you believe is rationally superior originates from nothing in the first place through a supposed event of abiogenesis and the rest is supposed history.

Flann wrote:

I don't think it's logical to think something can come from nothing

I am currently thinking about nothing.
Prove that I'm wrong, please.




ah-HAH! YOU CAN'T!!

I WIN!!

Flann 5 wrote:I don't think it's logical to think something can come from nothing. The eternal existence of the universe doesn't make much sense either...

I completely agree. I've never bought that concept. Something is missing here and I don't think any current religions or fields of science have the answer. But someday we're going to be smacking ourselves in the head when we figure it out. But it seems reasonable that we'll never really figure it out.

Give yourself to the dark side of the force.

We have cookies here.

These theories are extrapolations from what is not observed. Bacteria stay bacteria no matter how many times mutated. Any speciation that is observed is still the same essential creature whether a bird or a plant. Finches stay finches.

It simply must be said that TTOE is retrodictive and not predictive to what we should or should not expect the evolution of say, a horse, will be a thousand years from now.

No surprise, due to the complexity of life and its immediate environment.

Having said that, TTOE distinguishes itself in the sense that its predictive capabilities do not meet ideal explanatory scientific criteria.

My guess is that in never will.

fLANN wrote:What we should observe but don't are the myriad intermediate creatures leading up to the Cambrian ones.

Why should we observe them? Isn't the act of fossilization so rare that finding intermediate species is a matter of luck, especially considering how long ago the time period you're referring to was? Don't we have more than enough information already to conclude that all life on Earth has formed though descent with modification?

It's not about pointing out this or that problem Flann, it's about looking at the whole picture. We know there are problems. But they are grains of sand on a mountain. Not to say the problems are as small as grains of sand, but the total sum evidence for evolution is many many many times greater than you imagine. This is why the vast majority of people who have a clear understanding of what the TOE entails believes it is the explanation for life. Is the vast majority deluded?

Abiogenesis is fraught with problems which anyone looking at it honestly can see.

What do you mean abiogenesis is fraught with problems? Are you referring to the act that occurred, or to the explanations that are attempts to recreate how it occurred? Or are you saying that abiogenesis is borderline impossible? It's all math Flann. Given enough time, life is/was bound to arise from prebiotic soup. This point is too simple and powerful to argue against.

It's consistent with theism that God could direct natural processes or create directly.

Which god, and in what manner would he manipulate the matter involved in the natural processes? At what points in time did he interfere with natural events, and where is your evidence? For that matter, you first need to establish that any such entity exists in the first place. How do you do that?

Computer program designers see a big flaw with the idea of mutations being a creative force or generator of new or improving information in any real sense.

Do you have a reference for this claim?

ant wrote:I am currently thinking about nothing. Prove that I'm wrong, please. ah-HAH! YOU CAN'T!! I WIN!!

Okay, you win, bimbos united.

Hi ant, How are you?
I think you are impartially trying to present what appears to be convincing and overwhelming evidence for the macro evolutionary theory. Still I think there are serious objections.
Artificial breeding seems to indicate limits to evolution in dogs, cats,cattle and sheep for instance. Something that can be demonstrated from very long periods in such as cattle.
It also seems that new genetic information must be generated to create new and different body plans. How would something as complex as sonar in dolphins evolve from creatures with very different auditory systems?
Mutations seem to be the necessary catalysts for change but from already existing information, and these seem to be on the whole deleterious and subvert the normal, we might say programmed system for producing creatures exactly according to the blueprint. This also has it's built in and complex correctional systems.
We can look at complex biological systems and see a functional purpose in their complex interactions and in the coordinated function all of the biological systems whether, the circulatory or visual systems as examples.
Mutational errors often undermine this causing diseases and defects and malfunction in many cases.It's hard to see this as the advancer of constructive change and development.It doesn't sit easily with the idea that a system which produces complex interconnected functional biological systems should be progressed by the very thing it looks functionally designed to prevent.
So I think a case can be made for the theory, nevertheless I think there are real and substantial objections also.
And it's an oversimplification not by you,but by others to think it somehow to be just religiously based unreasonableness to have trouble believing it.
Just as a response on the whales example, here are a couple of clips from the other side. Maybe they are valid maybe not, but it's an attempt to evaluate the evidence from that perspective. The first is Marc Surtees,a creationist who does at least have a qualification in zoology and the second a more combative clip,both on Whale evolution. Bad link for the second so I'll just leave it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pSnYzbIlY

Hi, Flann;

I was mostly trying to redirect Robert to what the topic of discussion is in this thread.
He needs to play the ball and stop trolling.

And it's an oversimplification not by you,but by others to think it somehow to be just religiously based unreasonableness to have trouble believing it.

I think that is very possible and probably likely.