Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created

a reply to: whereislogic

They can't even admit that biological organisms are ordered systems, they're not going to be objective.

originally posted by: whereislogic
... I don't think anyone who debates evolutionary philosophies and unverified stories concerning the topic of common ancestry has an issue with the statement that many things change over time (there are some things that haven't changed since the beginning of the universe though, or at least there is no evidence that they have).

Even though I wasn't thinking of what I will quote from the article below when writing the above (where I was thinking more about the laws of mathematics and things like the way the force of gravity operates as described in the law of gravity), if you change the phrase "haven't changed" to "haven't changed much", it's relevant (also in light of the bolded illustration concerning pellets in a jar in response to the admission of Science magazine there in the same bolded paragraph from that article concerning limited variations).

On the Inordinate Amount of “Living Fossils” in the Flowering Plants (Angiospermae). Or how Darwin’s “abominable mystery” has become even more “abominable” and “mysterious” during the last 150 years than ever before.
(by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig
20/22/28 October 2021 / Update 22 December 2021)

...

... In many cases the deeper reason behind all the fuss about living fossils is the annoyance/offense/trouble and irritation of the evolutionarily totally unexpected stasis of the overwhelming majority of life forms in their history throughout geological ages up to now. This fact – to repeat: stasis of the overwhelming majority of life forms – is largely obscured by the usual focus on a relatively few selected examples as if that were the end of the subject instead of its beginnings.

During the last decades I have addressed the topic of living fossils time and again in discussions – in writing and verbally – with evolutionists in general and neo-Darwinians in particular: Although many of them earnestly tried to do so, up to now none of my interlocutors has been able to solve the basic problems involved in the essential/inherent/intrinsic constancy of the living fossils during geological eons of time within any materialistic theory of evolution, so that they all gave up – i. e. discontinuing/breaking off the dialogues due to their total lack of any convincing counter arguments.

Since all these main arguments and facts against Darwinism24 and evolution have been clearly and unmistakably stated in the written exchanges referred to above, I would like to come back directly to these conversations/dialogues/discourses citing them at length, inviting (especially) my critical readers to check them carefully and, if possible, to refute and evolutionarily solve these phenomenal organismic constancies, raising obviously unsurmountable problems for any phylogenetic theory stating that “all is in flux, nothing stands still” or “everything flows and nothing stays” (“panta rhei – πάντα ῥεῖ, Heraclitus).

...

I bolded the last part. The other earlier blue emphasis was added by Dr. Lönnig, who worked for the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants and is also a witness of Jehovah.

...

In the ensuing dialogue with a zoologist (Dr. A.) from the Zoological Garden in Berlin-West (1995) (in the interim he has become its “Zoologischer Leiter”) several further definitions of living fossils are cited and analyzed27. He never tried to refute the argumentation.28 Check, please, carefully the facts and arguments presented in the ensuing text and ask yourself whether you can agree with me that they are all the more up-to-date in 2021 (translated by Professor Granville Sewell of the University of Texas, El Paso; 1 November 2021. The original German text of the discussion is presented subsequently):

“Everything changes, nothing is constant, nothing proves eternal” one evolutionist wrote me recently (Dr. A from Berlin) as an objection to the popular science book Life, how did it get here? By evolution or by creation? (1985; 29.4 million copies in 27 languages published—this book was by the way also critically reviewed/commented by Prof. Heinz Haber and others.)

The phenomenon of living fossils mentioned there is very easy to explain, Dr. A. believes.

After some quotes on the constancy of several life forms (insects, fossil leaves of several trees and shrubs and the King Crab), as well as from Stanley’s book The New Evolutionary Timetable “As is seen, many species have populated the Earth for millions of years without further development worth mentioning...from their appearance to the time of their extinction, these species experience only a trivial development,” Dr. A remarked as follows:

“When a life form is adapted to the environment, and the environment does not significantly change, the life form remains unchanged for long periods. What is hard to understand about that?”

In his letter of 9-15-1995 he wrote, regarding the fundamental principle of natural science (and as an objection to constant creations):
“Everything changes, nothing is constant, nothing proves eternal.”

If however e v e r y t h i n g really changes, and n o t h i n g is proven to be e t e r n al, how does it happen that certain life forms exist not only 40 or 200 million years (as quoted above) but even 570 million years, until the present day?! (Compare this last point to the detailed quotation in my discussion with Mr. R. W. Kaplan, pages 14 and 24ff. The body plans of the animal kingdom have been constant for over 500 million years!

And further (page 14 of quote) “...since approximately 400 million years” there have arisen “no new classes within these animal branches. All of today’s classes arose together with others which have not survived to the present day.” Thus: all of today’s living classes have been constant for over 400 million years. (I write “over 400” because some of the animal classes are much older, only the youngest classes are 400 million years old.)

“The construction of new orders stopped around the end of the Mesozoic era, about 60 million years ago.” Thus, all of today’s living orders have been constant for at least 60 million years! www.weloennig.de...

One could object that this constancy is still not eternal!

(Since, as quoted above, Dr. A says “Everything changes, nothing is constant, nothing proves eternal.”)

To this I would suggest that something which has been constant for more than 500 million years, and continues to the present day, and according to natural science premises should continue to exist for billions of years (even a nuclear conflict would probably only threaten a portion of the body plans), could indeed be described as “eternal.”

In addition, Hans Krause in his book The Cell—Its Cause (Stuttgart 1995) lists many examples of fossil microorganisms (bacteria, blue algae) whose ages can be dated up to 3.5 billion years, and which have survived to the present day essentially unchanged. (“A high proportion of the nearly 300 prokaryotic taxa of Proterozoic microbial species are comparable in morphological detail to specific, modern, microorganisms.” “Also, the fossilized remains of different species of the cyanobacterium Oscillatoria have been found at Warrawoona, N.W. Australia. They are 3.3-3.5 billion years old.” Krause, p 76 and 83, where further examples are found). That could be called “eternal.”
www.hanskrause.de...

But even if Dr. A predicts a different future (that would be in my view an unfounded question of belief), if he for example should assume, for reasons unknown to me, that tomorrow or in the near future all life forms should become extinct, one could still be able to call the body plans of the animal and plant kingdoms which have existed for such enormous time spans, “constant and unchanging.”

...

Coming back to the book mentioned there at the start by Dr. Lönnig and their chapter on the subject of so-called "living fossils" (Darwin's invented term for the purpose of the obscuration of the point and problem of so-called "living fossils" for the promotion of evolutionary philosophies and interpretations):

Chapter 5: Letting the Fossil Record Speak (Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.”⁠13 The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”⁠14 What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?

What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”⁠15

Sorry, I was so out of space, that's obviously not the whole chapter (I normally indicate that with ...). And again, so much for Gould and other evolutionists favorite dodge and misleading claim to justify their lack of evidence for (macro)evolution in the fossil record, the old timeworn dodge of evolutionists: “Our fossil record is so imperfect.” (as used in 1987, the quotation above from Nilsson is from 1953; so it already didn't count 34 years before Gould used it again in his marketing essay posing under the marketinglabel "science" in which he repeated the mantra "evolution is a fact" a dozen times for indoctrination purposes)

originally posted by: whereislogic
... the old timeworn dodge of evolutionists: “Our fossil record is so imperfect.” (as used in 1987, the quotation above from Nilsson is from 1953; so it already didn't count 34 years before Gould used it again in his marketing essay posing under the marketinglabel "science" in which he repeated the mantra "evolution is a fact" a dozen times for indoctrination purposes)

Which leads us to the subject of the propaganda tactic of endless repetition (I was thinking of 'posing as science' when I said "posing" and shortened it, also, marketing and propaganda works the same way, and in both fields the tactic of endless repetition is taught when selling a product as well as the use of slogans and mantras, see preceding page of the article lnked in my signature concerning "slogans", and the article below concerning "mantras", which is a very appropiate term for evolutionary philosophies that find their roots in the pagan philosophies of the Hindu Brahmin, where the Greek pagan philosophers and Zeus- and Mother Nature worshippers* got their ideas from, and if you trace it further back, you end up in Babylon, hence the description in the Bible concerning false religion: Babylon the Great; see earlier linked videos entitled The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)).

*: Heraclitus, quoted by Dr. Lönnig in my previous comment, was one of 'm. So go ahead, make another joke about believing in Zeus when talking about those who believe in God, a Creator. When it's the fan of evolutionary philosophies who base their beliefs on the philosophies promoted by Zeus worshippers, then deny they have any beliefs, they don't "believe", they just "accept" .

Fraud in Science​—A Greater Fraud (Awake!—1990)

...

“EVOLUTION is a fact.” This is the standard confession of faith that assures the scientific community of your orthodoxy. And for public consumption, the claim is often added: ‘It has been proved so often that there is no longer a need to repeat the proof.’ Very convenient, especially since the evolutionist has no proof to repeat. Yet, for years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.”

In April last year, in a book review in The New York Times Book Review magazine, biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: “We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” ...

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! Excerpts from the article follow:

Darwin’s lifework was “establishing the fact of evolution.” “The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun).” By the time of Darwin’s death, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.” Gould spoke of it as “secure fact” and “the fact of transmutation.” “Evolution is also a fact of nature.” “Evolution is as well established as any scientific fact.” “Our confidence in the fact of evolution rests upon copious data.” He speaks of biologists’ agreement “about the fact of evolution.” “Theologians haven’t been troubled by the fact of evolution.” “I know hundreds of scientists who share a conviction about the fact of evolution.”

At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. It perverts the truth to induce another to part with something of value. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on​—all drum this evolution-​is-a-fact litany into the public mind. ...

It copies the tactics of the chief priests and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. When officers sent out to arrest Jesus came back without him, the Pharisees demanded: “‘Why is it you did not bring him in?’ The officers replied: ‘Never has another man spoken like this.’ In turn the Pharisees answered: ‘You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people.’” (John 7:45-49) The tyranny of authority: ‘None of the important people, none of the educated people, accept Jesus as Messiah. Only the stupid accursed ones do.’

Evolutionists today use the same Pharisaic approach: ‘Believe as we do,’ they say. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ By such intimidation and mental bullying, masses of people are herded into the evolutionists’ camp. They know nothing of the weaknesses and inadequacies of evolutionary theory or its unsound speculations and hypothesized impossibilities​—such as the origin of life from inanimate chemicals.* So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. They did in Jesus’ day; they do today.

This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

Evolutionists that specialize in the Big Lie that ‘Evolution is a fact’ also take another leaf out of Hitler’s book, for in it he said of the masses he controlled: “With the primitive simplicity of their minds they will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one, since they themselves perhaps also lie sometimes in little things, but would certainly still be too much ashamed of too great lies.” A book of popular quotations lists this one among them: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.” The one evolutionists tell is apparently big enough, and it’s certainly told often enough, for millions believe it.

It is a lie that is also a fraud because it is “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting,” an “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value.” Teaching that man’s ancestors are animals, starting with some microbe and ending with some ape, evolutionists have “exchanged the truth of God for the lie.” By this lie, they induce many to part with something of great value​—their faith in God as their Creator.​—Romans 1:25.

...

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Fraud in Science​—A Greater Fraud (Awake!—1990)

...

Evolutionists today use the same Pharisaic approach: ‘Believe as we do,’ they say. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ By such intimidation and mental bullying, masses of people are herded into the evolutionists’ camp. They know nothing of the weaknesses and inadequacies of evolutionary theory or its unsound speculations and hypothesized impossibilities​—such as the origin of life from inanimate chemicals.* So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. They did in Jesus’ day; they do today.

This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

Evolutionists that specialize in the Big Lie that ‘Evolution is a fact’ also take another leaf out of Hitler’s book, for in it he said of the masses he controlled: “With the primitive simplicity of their minds they will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one, since they themselves perhaps also lie sometimes in little things, but would certainly still be too much ashamed of too great lies.” A book of popular quotations lists this one among them: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.” The one evolutionists tell is apparently big enough, and it’s certainly told often enough, for millions believe it.

...

And spare me the 'evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life'-mantra and then ignoring the bolded part that comes right after the remark about "the origin of life from inanimate chemicals". When that particular evolutionary philosophy is called "chemical evolution" and "the chemical evolution theory of life". You're just demonstrating that you have been affected by these propagandistic mantras. A proper definition for "evolution" includes the subject:

Evolution

Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

Source: Evolution (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

I know the fan of evolutionary philosophies has been conditioned and indoctrinated not to agree with that definition, in particular the first sentence. So no need to point that out again (which one of you already recently did in this thread using the earlier mentioned mantra, really? "Nothing"? "Evolution", not "the theory of evolution", not "biological evolution", we don't need to specify in the mantra? Even when it's called "chemical evolution" or "the chemical evolution theory of life"? Must be Dawkins', Krauss' and Hawking's use of the word "nothing" in that mantra, where "nothing" is used to refer to "something", or doesn't actually mean "nothing", or "isn't nothing anymore, in physics"; pfff, as if adding "in physics" lends additional weight to this philosophical contradiction that has nothing to do with physics, nor science for that matter; and when I say "nothing", I actually mean nothng, unlike Lawrence Krauss in his book A Universe from Nothing mimicking the Trinitarians way of talking in contradictions and misusing language to hide the contradictions they are selling*).

*: 1 Timothy 6:20,21

20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”* [Latin: scientia; KJV: "science"] 21 By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.

The trinitarians present their contradictions as "knowledge" (from the Bible, or from God, or from divine inspiration by what they refer to as "The Holy Ghost", like Casper the Ghost), the promoters of evolutionary philosophies under the marketinglabel "science" (also from the Latin scientia). Supposed wisdom.

Philosophy (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

The Greek word phi·lo·so·phiʹa means, literally, “love of wisdom.” In modern usage the term relates to human endeavors to understand and interpret through reason and speculation the whole of human experience, including the underlying causes and principles of reality.

The Greek words for “philosophy” and “philosopher” each occur only once in the Christian Greek Scriptures. (Col 2:8; Ac 17:18) Evidently when Paul wrote to the congregation at Colossae in Asia Minor, some there were in danger of being affected by “the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men.” Greek philosophies were then quite prominent. ...

As they are today, along with the philosophers who promoted them, like Plato, Aristotle, etc. (see for more names the earlier linked videos concerning the religious pagan roots of evolutionary philosophies, Plato was also a key figure in the doctrine of the Trinity, and the myth of the immortal immaterial soul, and the myth of a fiery hell, where the Hindu Brahmins also come into play again, and all philosophical roads lead to Babylon, not Rome; not that they don't lead from Babylon to Rome by way of Greece, India and Egypt; even evolutionary philosophies and myths can be traced back to Babylon and the Hindu philosophies concerning reincarnation in turn ties into evolutionary philosophies and is built upon the myth of the immaterial immortal soul; as the Babylonian theologians and religious philosophers put it: “Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556. A small adjustment to the lie Satan told to Eve: “You certainly will not die.”—Gen 3:4. Now it's the real you that supposedly will not die, as in your soul or some immaterial part that survives the death of the physical body. Fact: At death a person ceases to exist and “in that day his thoughts do perish.”—Ps 146:4 ).

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: whereislogic

They can't even admit that biological organisms are ordered systems, they're not going to be objective.

Define 'ordered'.

Organic systems are chemical reactions. There is no design and no 'logic', which is a term that doesn't even apply to these processes.

originally posted by: TerraLiga


Define 'ordered'.

Organic systems are chemical reactions. There is no design and no 'logic', which is a term that doesn't even apply to these processes.

Biochemically speaking, Order is the opposite of entropy (disorder). Entropy (disorder) is favorable in chemical reactions, meaning chemistry tends towards disorder and not order. The fact that biological systems are ordered, demonstrated by the fact that once they die entropy begins to disorder the flesh, shows that random chance chemical interactions would not make an ordered system.

Protein Decomposition reactions are entropically favored because it is decreasing order, whereas protein synthesis is entropically unfavored because it is increasing order

a reply to: cooperton

There is a conflation here. Flesh is a compound of elements that is bound together by organic systems that rely on metabolism and many other organic interactions. In the absence of those interactions, death in your example, there is no longer any cohesive bond so individual structures, systems, elements and eventually atoms will escape or be consumed by other processes.

So order, design and logic (man-made definitions or descriptions) are all irrelevant in organic systems.

Incidentally, wouldn't chemical disorder promote the idea of chance?

originally posted by: TerraLiga


So order, design and logic (man-made definitions or descriptions) are all irrelevant in organic systems.

It's the 2nd law of thermodynamics... entropy in the system is always increasing. Entropy is defined as disorder. If disorder is always increasing, this mean order is always decreasing in chemical systems. "Order" is very relevant to organic systems. Disorder is the decomposition of organic systems, whereas order is the synthesis of them.

a reply to: cooperton

Where is the entropy in a cell - an organic system that renews itself and also terminates itself?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Where is the entropy in a cell - an organic system that renews itself and also terminates itself?

The net entropy is increasing due to the organism's requirement to metabolize biomolecules to persist. For example when you eat a vegetable you are not getting a 100% energy transfer, there is much that goes to waste. This is how the increasing entropy law still applies to ordered biological beings.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: whereislogic

They can't even admit that biological organisms are ordered systems, they're not going to be objective.

Define 'ordered'.

Organic systems are chemical reactions. There is no design and no 'logic', which is a term that doesn't even apply to these processes.

or·der
/ˈôrdər/
noun
1.
the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.
"I filed the cards in alphabetical order"

There is order throughout Nature and throughout organisms.
If the atoms in your body were not 'ordered' in a certain way, you would not exist.

Do you think scientist that sequence DNA actually write the order of nucleotides in DNA??
NO, they are determining the nucleic acid sequence based on the order that is already there.
The code was written LONG ago, they are just interpreting it so THEY/WE can understand.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Amusing. Nobody 'wrote' DNA/RNA. An intelligence would have written it in binary, not quaternary.

originally posted by: cooperton
Great point. Organisms and populations of organisms can adapt, but it's never been shown they can become something else. How about a rat becoming a mouse or vice versa? Or an E. Coli becoming a spirochete?? The thing is, it never happens. 73,000 generations of forcefully trying to induce evolution on an E. Coli strain and its still E. Coli

You were rejecting the definition of biological a couple pages ago. You refuse logic's involvement in biological organisms, so how can we even have a logical conversation about something that you suppose has no logic?

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a dictionary definition. Why are you refusing to define your terms? Again you say "something else," but can't even describe what that means. There is no theory of adaptation, so his point was bad. "Adaptation" is a decades old Kent Hovind STRAW MAN argument. It holds no merit.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Toothache

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Renaming evolution to adaptation??!!??
You are renaming adaptation to evolution.
Do the names Empedocles and Aristotle ring any bells? Adaptation was noticed LONG before Darwin decided he didn't like God anymore and started his own religion.

Adaptation is adaptation.
It is the process by which organisms better fit their environment or as botanist Robert Greenleaf Leavitt in the journal Botanical Gazette coined it, "microevolution".
Anything beyond that is taken on faith. It is a belief, nothing more.

Nope, you made that argument, not me. Equivocating the theory of evolution to the word "adaptation" is dishonest, and you know that. If I travel to Africa and stay there for 10 years, I adapt. That doesn't mean by body experiences evolutionary mutations, it just means I get used to the different environment and learn to deal with the challenges that arise from that. It's called evolution, your fallacy is dismissed.

So you say but all we see, all we can prove is adaptation because it happens.

Repeating a fallacy does not make it true. Adaptation happens in individual lifetimes. Evolution happens over generations. Stop the dishonest straw men.

originally posted by: Toothache

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Toothache

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Renaming evolution to adaptation??!!??
You are renaming adaptation to evolution.
Do the names Empedocles and Aristotle ring any bells? Adaptation was noticed LONG before Darwin decided he didn't like God anymore and started his own religion.

Adaptation is adaptation.
It is the process by which organisms better fit their environment or as botanist Robert Greenleaf Leavitt in the journal Botanical Gazette coined it, "microevolution".
Anything beyond that is taken on faith. It is a belief, nothing more.

Nope, you made that argument, not me. Equivocating the theory of evolution to the word "adaptation" is dishonest, and you know that. If I travel to Africa and stay there for 10 years, I adapt. That doesn't mean by body experiences evolutionary mutations, it just means I get used to the different environment and learn to deal with the challenges that arise from that. It's called evolution, your fallacy is dismissed.

So you say but all we see, all we can prove is adaptation because it happens.

Repeating a fallacy does not make it true. Adaptation happens in individual lifetimes. Evolution happens over generations. Stop the dishonest straw men.

Adaptation happens over generations, evolution does not happen, not in the way you are thinking.
The only part of biological evolution that can be proven is adaptation.
That is why the ever so bloated, all encompassing theory of evolution has to include adaptation.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: Quadrivium

Amusing. Nobody 'wrote' DNA/RNA. An intelligence would have written it in binary, not quaternary.

You are very limited in your thinking. What makes you believe that an Intelligence with enough knowledge to create a living organism would use binary code?
To get the diversity in organisms on this little blue marble you would need quaternary, not binary.

a reply to: whereislogic

Krause's book is not relevant to this discussion. Everybody has their opinions, but nobody has any evidence or facts regarding the origin of the universe aside from it being close together at one point and expanding. You haven't read the Hawking book either and that's clear. Otherwise, you'd understand what he meant by that and how physicists explain it. Are quantum fluctuations "nothing?"

mantra that "evolution is a fact", and then when pressed for evidence, equivocating "evolution" with or quickly switching to the meaning "change over time" or in your case "long term adaptation"

Completely false. Long term adaptation was in response to a straw man from Quad. The process described by the theory of evolution is a fact. Nobody is switching meanings to "change over time" aside from creationists. We provide evidence that you deny, we don't just switch meanings, that's a common theist tactic.

And you also drop the common "dogs will always be dogs" lie. Not sure if you know this but we have the fossils and DNA to link them to wolves and their ancestors. If evolution is based on genetic changes that accumulate over generations, how is it NOT evidence to observe exactly that in experiments? You don't seem to understand that a dog giving birth to cat would falsify the entire theory. Slow change is what happens, and that is what is observed. It's not rocket science.

Also your "Darwin's tree" article was laughable. Give me an actual scientific source on that instead of a religious propaganda website that is quote mining. Thanks.

I get that your whole gimmick is to confuse people by posting long winded rhetoric, but try being direct and to the point. Instead of going off on silly tirade of propaganda.

originally posted by: cooperton
Biochemically speaking, Order is the opposite of entropy (disorder).

That is the first time I've heard "order" defined that way.

Entropy is basically just cooling over time, so it sounds like you are stating that anything that heats up rather than cools in the short term must be designed. How is whether something gains energy or loses it dependent on design?

originally posted by: Toothache
DP! Didn't realize somebody already asked him to define "order." Love it.

I gave my answer above:

Order is the opposite of entropy (which is defined as disorder). Biochemical reactions favor entropy, meaning disorder. This is why abiogenesis and evolution don't make sense because polymerizing DNA and proteins is energetically unfavorable, meaning that decomposition is the favored reaction (as we can see when an organism dies). Therefore abiogenesis is not plausible according to entropic favorability

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Toothache
DP! Didn't realize somebody already asked him to define "order." Love it.

I gave my answer above:

Order is the opposite of entropy (which is defined as disorder). Biochemical reactions favor entropy, meaning disorder. This is why abiogenesis and evolution don't make sense because polymerizing DNA and proteins is energetically unfavorable, meaning that decomposition is the favored reaction (as we can see when an organism dies). Therefore abiogenesis is not plausible according to entropic favorability

Read again, I updated it.