The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

If intelligent design is true then he/she/it also created these little beauties :

Guinea Worm
Screw Worm Fly
Roundworm
Candiru Fish
Human Bot-Fly

That makes the intelligent designer one evil effing b.stard!

Evolution on the other hand would result in creatures using whatever is at hand to survive and grow.

originally posted by: SanitySearcher
a reply to: LABTECH767

In the beginning there was nothing and nothing evolved to be everything. Yet nothing evolved everything from nothing contradicts 5 known laws of science.

The proven law of cause and effect
The proven law of conservation of energy/mass
The proven law of increasing entropy
The proven laws of universal information
The proven law of biogenises

This concept also contradicts reason.

Those who believe in this stuff have more faith than those who believe in intelligent design. Atheism, therefore (and by default evolution and the Enormous Explosion are the ones who have the MOST faith.

Absolutely true, it is a self evident argument, scientists whom believe in god have an answer, those that are trying to disprove him or it or they have no answer.

Even if they explain the big bang which may or may not be right (The lord's footsteps echo in the hall's of the deep) then they have to create a hypothetical model of a universe before the universe but once again when asked were did that come from they are stumped and so on and so on ad infinitum.

Could anyone please quote any reputable scientist with the claim that "something came from nothing"?

Also, could anyone state what that has to do with evolution and so-called intelligent design?

Thank you kindly.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Could anyone please quote any reputable scientist with the claim that "something came from nothing"?

Also, could anyone state what that has to do with evolution and so-called intelligent design?

Thank you kindly.

This thread is just a show of defiance from people who couldn't get their opinion published in world weekly news, and that's saying something.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Could anyone please quote any reputable scientist with the claim that "something came from nothing"?

Also, could anyone state what that has to do with evolution and so-called intelligent design?

Thank you kindly.

This thread is just a show of defiance from people who couldn't get their opinion published in world weekly news, and that's saying something.

I bow in reverence at the succinct and telling nature of your observation, Sir (or Lady) Chasm.

Perhaps they should self-publish? There are mounds of dreck that have been committed to paper on that basis.

Jeez.

Keep up the good work!

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think that this a widely misunderstood topic, that ignorant zealots have tried to present as evidence for their theology.

Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing? by MICHIO KAKU

Today, Dr. Kaku addresses a question posed by Brian Flatt.

"In Stephen Hawking’s new book The Grand Design, he says that because of the law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. But I thought that gravity was a function of mass, as per Einstein. How can you have gravity before mass and therefore how can gravity explain mass?"

originally posted by: Xstokerx

originally posted by: OuttaHere
To evolve a leg into a wing requires millions upon millions of adaptations, each one conferring an evolutionary advantage and then being passed on to progeny and eventually becoming prevalent in the population. Which means many, many more millions of adaptations must needs have occurred which caused a disadvantage, since mutations are usually devastating to the individual and so do not make their way into the population. What are the interim steps between a leg and a wing? How did each of these interim states confer an advantage? It would make a bad leg long before it made a good wing.

Not realy bat wings are rather easy to see how they evolved. Look at sugar gliders. A critter is born with some extra webbed skin and can glide a bit further reach better food ect. Eventually as more and more webbing forms until they glide with ease. Eventually the ones with bigger chest mussels start turning better and get to better food. Those muscle bound guys eventually start giving a bit of a flap and make it a little farther than gliding. Continue on until you have a bat. Look at a chicken or wild turkey. No one is going to claim they are graceful in the air except they can muster a bit extra lift and reach some pretty good sized trees. I can see them continuing on until they could fly with enough time. This whole ID group just drives me crazy. Some of them even seem intellegent. Wish they would use all this negative Energy into actually looking for this biogenesis answer they so desire. Look the genesis of the universe may never be discern able it's a shame but at such high masses and time lost we just may never know. At the point of singularity nothing would make since to a human trying to conclude cause to something that is with out time will never work. Biogenesis in my opinion will be discovered at some point and most likely revolve around heat and solutions of water. I suspect current life is the outlier and more common and our first life lived in a very hot volitile place. Unless you are silly driven to prove a god nothing points to design period just not there. Dna isn't computer code. Those letters are actullay chemical compounds they use computer code as anology. Anyways this argument gets old if you want to live in a cave and search for God good for you. Just please don't poison the young minds around you and please don't try to put this in a class room.

So when did the echolocation get developed?

There is more to a bat than just wings.

As to biogenesis, can't wait til someone figures it out.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Could anyone please quote any reputable scientist with the claim that "something came from nothing"?

Also, could anyone state what that has to do with evolution and so-called intelligent design?

Thank you kindly.

www.scientificamerican.com...

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Could anyone please quote any reputable scientist with the claim that "something came from nothing"?

Also, could anyone state what that has to do with evolution and so-called intelligent design?

Thank you kindly.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Thank you kindly, excellent article on virtual particles and some light quantum theory ... but ... doing a quick search of the document:

Incidences of the word "nothing" : 0

Incidences of the word "something" : 0

So, I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Good. Now read this en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah, did he bang on the computer while it was arranging 28 letters?

"Although Dawkins did not provide the source code for his program, a "Weasel" style algorithm could run as follows.

Start with a random string of 28 characters.
Make 100 copies of the string (reproduce).
For each character in each of the 100 copies, with a probability of 5%, replace (mutate) the character with a new random character.
Compare each new string with the target string "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", and give each a score (the number of letters in the string that are correct and in the correct position).
If any of the new strings has a perfect score (28), halt. Otherwise, take the highest scoring string, and go to step 2.
For these purposes, a "character" is any uppercase letter, or a space. The number of copies per generation, and the chance of mutation per letter are not specified in Dawkins's book; 100 copies and a 5% mutation rate are examples. Correct letters are not "locked". Each correct letter may become incorrect in subsequent generations. The terms of the program and the existence of the target phrase do however mean that such 'negative mutations' will quickly be 'corrected'."

So it had a desired result from the conception of the programming.

Is it a big deal or not?

Forget the fact that this is not even a biological equivalent.

What it proves to me is that he created the results he wanted. Created being the operative word.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Could anyone please quote any reputable scientist with the claim that "something came from nothing"?

Also, could anyone state what that has to do with evolution and so-called intelligent design?

Thank you kindly.

Hawking said all you need is gravity to make the universe, no god needed.

Without a universe you have no evolution. How's that?

Yep, mutations are generally degenerative, a bunch of mutations in a long string would be more likely to result in the end of a progression towards higher life forms.

As well as life from lifelessness.

Lifelessness divided by lifelessness doesn't equal life.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Could anyone please quote any reputable scientist with the claim that "something came from nothing"?

Also, could anyone state what that has to do with evolution and so-called intelligent design?

Thank you kindly.

Hawking said all you need is gravity to make the universe, no god needed.

Without matter there is no gravity.

Without a universe you have no evolution. How's that?

Except, according to the Evolutionary experts, the whole Universe didn't hatch life, this dust mote speck of a planet did.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
As the scientist himself said, he realised that he had spent so much of his life arguing about things that doesn't matter and in the long run, they don't.

Whether it's evolution or creation, evidence exists for both and yet still both un-proven.

probably because they reject each other.

I don't believe that we are just some computer stimulaton created by a highly advanced computer system, but I also find it hard to believe that everything was developed by chance either. there is just too much evidence in the form of fossils the deny that evolution did play a role, but I don't see why those old bones disqualifies the idea that there might of been a being, or beings far more advanced than us, possibly a god that that guided that evolution. or on the other hand I don't see why the existence of that more highly advanced influence would disqualify the idea that he didn't use the evolutionary process as a tool to meet his goal.

maybe someday, our great, great, great, great, great, grandchildren might understand how creation began but well, I think the best we can do (and quite frankly we would be better off if we did this from time to time in so many areas), is to admit that we just don't know the whole story, but here is what we do know, and just lay it all out, all the legends and myths, all the scientific facts, and maybe that would help future generations discover some of the keys. at least enough to understand just how they created life on barren rocks floating in space.

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you want some REAL interesting information consider ALL Quantum processes are observed to have interference patterns when not observed.

If we're made in God's image, we would be a copy of him correct?

Why are we not? He's looking right at us.

We'll become God when the bastard dies of old age!

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you want some REAL interesting information consider ALL Quantum processes are observed to have interference patterns when observed.

If we're made in God's image, we would be a copy of him correct?

Why are we not? He's looking right at us.

We'll become God when the bastard dies of old age!

LOL. I don't disagree in general, however ... I do still have to ask ... which "God" are we talking about?

El
YHVH
Adonai
Heavenly Father
Zeus
Odin
Siva

or any other of the million or so ideations of "God" that humans have created?

a reply to: Gryphon66

No idea, I don't believe in God :-( so I lack much more made up science.

I like "God" as the basic word for the definition tho.

I stole this from my idea that UFO's don't fly, if at the very least there isn't a driver observing it to flatten the interference. You can't make an autonomous anti-gravity drone. Someone needs to 'watch' it for it to 'fly' xD. Even if it's a camera/computer, and the observation is LITERALLY afterwards lmfao. Something fishy in Quantum science to say the least.

To some degree, it Flys because someone "thinks" it does.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Gryphon66

No idea, I don't believe in God :-( so I lack much more made up science.

I like "God" as the basic word for the definition tho.

I stole this from my idea that UFO's don't fly, if at the very least there isn't a driver observing it to flatten the interference. You can't make an autonomous anti-gravity drone. Someone needs to 'watch' it for it to 'fly' xD. Even if it's a camera/computer, and the observation is LITERALLY afterwards lmfao. Something fishy in Quantum science to say the least.

To some degree, it Flys because someone "thinks" it does.

AH, good heavens, a philosophical thinker at ATS!

LOL, your points are indeed good ones.

My thing is this: there have been thousands if not millions of different conceptions of "God" in the course of human history.

What are the odds that the one chosen by an obscure Semitic tribe is actually the Lord and Master of the Universe?

a reply to: Gryphon66

And my retort is with millions of examples what is the likely hood it's untrue :-)

I have a theory Bob Saget had some kind of male-on-male thing happen, even though there is no evidence, the inside joke of Hollywood: Bob Saget is gay!

Myths come from somewhere. Lots of them doesn't discredit origin, it questions it :p

a reply to: Gryphon66

From the article - Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.