I can prove God exists

[invest07]

Hard Driver

It has never been demonstrated that organisms can become more organized or more complex over time through naturalistic means. See my post above and try out the random mutation generator just for fun. Random mutations produce gibberish in short order.

While increasing complexity and organization is an important leg of the THEORY of naturalistic evolution, it has never been verifed or observed.

The laws of thermodynamics have been verified mathematically and are accepted by virtually every rational person of science. Increasing organization and increasing complexity violates the entropy law of thermodynamics. Life arising from non-life also violates the first laws of biogensis, which has been verified by countless observations.

 

[9sublime]

9sublime
You are correct when you say that every language has evolved. I should have been more careful in my choice of words. No language has ever been initially created through naturalistic evolution without intelligence. And my next question for you concerns the indentity of the designer. You believe that ID is a possibility for origins. So who is the designer?

Religons are bandwagons. When something cant be explained, every religion comes up with some answers, and people hop on to them. I don't need to hop onto a bandwagon and convince myself of who the designer is, I can live without knowing.

 

[Coyote]

coyote

"DNA, RNA, photosynthesis, viral dna particles, chemical communication between fetus and mother, hormones, symbiotic relationships, parisitic relationships...."

All of your examples are a result of the coding in DNA. DNA controls all of these examples. And it is effectively impossible for a highly complex code to evolve naturalistically, without intelligent input. So you still haven't provided any example of a code that has evolved naturalistically, without intelligence.

You have protein particles and prions, that that replicate and contain a very primative code that is not DNA but thought to be a precursor of what eventually evolved into DNA.

My proof for God is summarized below:

Fact #1. DNA is a code.
Fact #2. There are thousands of code/languages on earth and every one of them was created by intelligence.
Fact #3. There are no codes/languages in existence on earth that were initially vreated through naturalistic evolution without intelligence.
Conclusion #1. The design of DNA required intelligence.

Right there is a huge logical fallacy.

Just because there thousands of codes and languages created by intellegence does necessarily mean that ALL codes and languages were created by intellegence.

DNA could easily have evolved naturally and scientific research into it has discovered primitive replicating proteins thought to be precursors to the much more complicated DNA. Prions (such as that which causes Mad Cow Disease) are even more primative then virus' and contain code that may have developed into DNA. I am not that knowledgable on cellular biology and evolution so I'm only scratching the surface with what I remember reading and I could be wrong but I don't think so.

Conclusion: Evidence is there that DNA could have evolved naturally.

And your next argument is that DNA started simple and evolved more compexity over time. This is one leg of the THEORY of evolution that has never been proven, or observed in nature.

I believe it has substantial evidence supporting it. The discovery of replicating protiens and primitive proto-viral organisms and scientists have been able to produce very primitive replicating proteins in the lab.

The THEORY of evolution is nothing more than a THEORY.

There is a world of difference beween any old "theory" and a scientific theory. Scientific theories have a lot of hoops to jump through before they become excepted.

Some scientists say that evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis and doesn't even deserve theory status.

What scientists?

The curator of the Fields museum of Natural History has said that fewer undisputed transitional fossils exist today that in Darwin's time. The foundations of evolution are shaky and getting shakier every day.

Fewer doesn't equal none. It doesn't alter the fact that there is clear evidence of transitions in the fossil record.

the gauntlet I threw is still at your feet. Can you pick it up?

It has been picked up, and tossed back.

If there is a "designer" - who designed the designer?

 

[invest07]

Prions

coyote

I checked a few web sources for Prions and protein particles
Here is what one source says:

"A gene for the normal protein has been isolated: the PRNP gene.[32] Prion diseases can be inherited, and in all inherited cases there is a mutation in the PRNP gene. Many different PRNP mutations have been identified and it is thought that the mutations somehow make PrPC more likely to spontaneously change into the abnormal PrPSc form."

Prions are a product of DNA.

Strike 2

Your statement that "DNA could easily have evolved naturally " is typical of evolutionist thinking but is indefensible. No evolution is easy.

And until you can point out just one code/language that you can prove evolved naturalistically without intelligence actually exists, you haven't established that it is even possible.

I discussed the ridiculously low probabilities of DNA aranging itself in the proper order without intelligence. If you think that 1 chance out of 4 to the 4 millionth power is possible, so be it. I can't suspend my brain enough to accept such odds as reasonable.

There are no examples of codes/languages arising without design. And the odds of complex codes happening by chance are virtuially zero. So assuming the existence of a designer is a reasonable conclusion. Certainly it is more scientifically defensible than assuming DNA beat incredible odds and "just happened".

And what is your anwer to my charge that evolution violates the entropy law of thermodynamics and violates the first law of biogenesis? Both of these laws have been verified, something that evolution can't say. So why accept an unverified THEORY when it requires the violation of 2 verifed laws?

As to your question about God's designer, the answer is I don't know. The Bible says God always existed. I understand you can't accept any statement from the Bible at face value but there is scientific evidence of the Bible's assertion.

Some physicists today accept a modified "Steady State" theorem that states the universe has always existed. While the Big Bang is the prevalent theory today, the Steady Staters go before the BB event and believe the matter and energy that fueled the Big Bang has always existed. In other words, the BB was not the beginning of everything but only our present universe.

If the universe has always existed, why not the designer?

And as for Evolution as a hypothesis rather than theory, the scientific process follows a logical order:
1. A hypothesis is proposed which seems to explain the evidence.
2. Initial data and observations are analyzed to see if the hypothesis explains all the data. If it doesn't, the hypothesis is modified to explain all the data or it is deep sixed. If it does explain all the data, the hypothesis is elevated to theory status.
3. Until a hypothesis explains all the data, it is not considered to be a theory.
4. Some theories can be tested (such as clinical drug testing) and may eventually be accepted as scientific fact.

The gaping holes in evolutionary theory are enough to relegate evolution to hypothesis status, which is a condition of lower reliability than a theory. Simply put, Evolution does not explain all the data. And the data that Evolution can't explain is growing daily. On a reliability scale, Evolution is going backwards. Evolution can never achieve the staus of #4 above (scientific fact).

coyote, the ship your'e on is sinking. Get off while you can. Or drown. Your choice.

 

[Coyote]

coyote

I checked a few web sources for Prions and protein particles
Here is what one source says:

"A gene for the normal protein has been isolated: the PRNP gene.[32] Prion diseases can be inherited, and in all inherited cases there is a mutation in the PRNP gene. Many different PRNP mutations have been identified and it is thought that the mutations somehow make PrPC more likely to spontaneously change into the abnormal PrPSc form."

Prions are a product of DNA.

Strike 2

I don't think so. What you are saying - if that is accurate - is that some prion diseases can be inherited.

That does not cover all prions as prions are also an infectious disease.

You left out the next sentance from your source: Prion diseases are the only known diseases that can be sporadic, genetic, or infectious.

No strike.

 

[Coyote]

coyote

Your statement that "DNA could easily have evolved naturally " is typical of evolutionist thinking but is indefensible. No evolution is easy.

We're talking billions of years here - a span of time unimaginable.

For some thoughts on how DNA could have evolved here is one article:
http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=189

 

[Coyote]

coyote
As to your question about God's designer, the answer is I don't know. The Bible says God always existed. I understand you can't accept any statement from the Bible at face value but there is scientific evidence of the Bible's assertion.

That's hardly scientific.

coyote, the ship your'e on is sinking. Get off while you can. Or drown. Your choice.

My ship's doing fine thank you

But if you'll toss me a bucket I'll help you bail

 

[invest07]

coyote

No answer for the entropy law or the biogenesis law viloation of evolution?

Prions are a product of DNA. While they may also function as stand alone agents, they are the product, at some point in time, of DNA.

And still no code/langauge that you can prove developed without intelligence?
Could it be that no such code/language exists?

And there are still many physicists who subcribe to the theory that the universe has always existed. This is indirect support (and no doubt unintended) for the Bible's assertion that God has always existed. The Bible and many modern day physicists both say the universe has always existed.

My assertion concerning the existence of God does not require any verified laws of science to be violated. Evolution, which is an unverified hypothesis/theory, does violate 2 verifed laws of science.

Your comments concerning transition forms is an example of tunnel vision. Because you claim evolution has proceeded since the inception of life virtually every fossil should show some sign of transition. Every bird should be seamlessly evolving into Bird 2.0 and immediately into Bird 2.1. Every fossil (or certainly most every fossil), should show clear signs of transition. So why are these darn transition fossils so scarce? One measure of a hypothesis/theory is how well it predicts conditions. In this case, the hypothesis/theory of evolution is a lousy predicter.

Instead the fossil record contains very, very few transitional forms and most of those are disputed which means they are not clearly transitions to the experts. The fossil record supports Biblical assertions: Each species has a time on Earth and then extinction. Then a new species arises, seemingly spontaneously. The fossil record supports this position far more strongly than transition.

Transitions have never been observed, even in insects with short lives, and this is still an area of great speculation and no verification, even after 150 years. Speculation but no verification. No mutated fruit fly has ever turned into anything but another fruit fly. No mutrated fruit flies are birds or worms or fish or flowers. Only fruit flies. And none of the mutated fruit flies has ever demonstrated improvement. On the contrary, after mutation, they can't fly or are missing wings or have other serious impairments. I thought evolution required major improvements to be made. Bigger, stronger, faster, smarter. Instead mutations produce cripples.

And the possiblility of increasing complexity and increasing organization over time violates the entropy law of thermodynamics which has been verified. So your belief system is based on speculation and interpretation rather than verification.

coyote, your belief system is subjective when true science is objective.

Just for fun try this web site: randommutations.com. The hypothesis/theory of evolution requires random mutations to result in higher levels of complexity and higher levels of organization with passage of time. Instead random mutations produce gibberish over time.

Here is a quote from your DNA evolution story:
"TNA does not occur naturally today. Scientists have to create it in the lab in order to study it. Since we can't go back in time to witness the evolution of nucleic acids, we will never be able to prove whether natural TNA made an appearance on Earth. Indeed, says Eschenmoser, "talking about TNA as a a possible ancestor of RNA is actually premature."

coyote, has ANY leg of evolution ever been verified? 15o years and counting since Darwin and verification should just about be complete. That is, if the hypothesis/theory is true.

 

[Coyote]

coyote

No answer for the entropy law or the biogenesis law viloation of evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.​

Entropy: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

Prions are a product of DNA. While they may also function as stand alone agents, they are the product, at some point in time, of DNA.

Product or precurser?

And still no code/langauge that you can prove developed without intelligence?
Could it be that no such code/language exists?

DNA exists. Self replicating proteins exist - and they are not composed of DNA. RNA exists. It is not DNA. Those are biological codes that have nothing to do with a guiding intellegence unless you believe in a religious point of origin for it all but there is no scientific basis for that. Absence of evidence for one thing does not equal the presence of evidence for another.

And there are still many physicists who subcribe to the theory that the universe has always existed. This is indirect support (and no doubt unintended) for the Bible's assertion that God has always existed. The Bible and many modern day physicists both say the universe has always existed.

Just because A always existed and B always existed does not mean A is B or A created B. That is just not science.

That would be like saying:

Horses have hair.
Humans have hair.
Horses are humans.

The Bible does not say that the universe always existed. It says God created everything in a 6 day work frenzy.

My assertion concerning the existence of God does not require any verified laws of science to be violated. Evolution, which is an unverified hypothesis/theory, does violate 2 verifed laws of science.

The definition of a scientific theory - Stephen J. Gould described this best:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981​

Also:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983​

According to Wikipedia:

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:

* is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
* is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.​

Your comments concerning transition forms is an example of tunnel vision. Because you claim evolution has proceeded since the inception of life virtually every fossil should show some sign of transition. Every bird should be seamlessly evolving into Bird 2.0 and immediately into Bird 2.1. Every fossil (or certainly most every fossil), should show clear signs of transition. So why are these darn transition fossils so scarce? One measure of a hypothesis/theory is how well it predicts conditions. In this case, the hypothesis/theory of evolution is a lousy predicter.

Instead the fossil record contains very, very few transitional forms and most of those are disputed which means they are not clearly transitions to the experts. The fossil record supports Biblical assertions: Each species has a time on Earth and then extinction. Then a new species arises, seemingly spontaneously. The fossil record supports this position far more strongly than transition.

Transitions have never been observed, even in insects with short lives, and this is still an area of great speculation and no verification, even after 150 years. Speculation but no verification. No mutated fruit fly has ever turned into anything but another fruit fly. No mutrated fruit flies are birds or worms or fish or flowers. Only fruit flies. And none of the mutated fruit flies has ever demonstrated improvement. On the contrary, after mutation, they can't fly or are missing wings or have other serious impairments. I thought evolution required major improvements to be made. Bigger, stronger, faster, smarter. Instead mutations produce cripples.
[/quote[

I've discussed transitional fossils and genetic mutations before in another thread so I don't want to go over it again but here is are two good links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

And the possiblility of increasing complexity and increasing organization over time violates the entropy law of thermodynamics which has been verified. So your belief system is based on speculation and interpretation rather than verification.

Entropy: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

 

[Coyote]

coyote, your belief system is subjective when true science is objective.

My "belief system" is based on science. If your "theories" can jump through the same hoops that a scientific theory must jump through to be accepted, I will consider it a valid theory. Until then it's only a religious belief.

Just for fun try this web site: randommutations.com. The hypothesis/theory of evolution requires random mutations to result in higher levels of complexity and higher levels of organization with passage of time. Instead random mutations produce gibberish over time.

Here's another view: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Here is a quote from your DNA evolution story:
"TNA does not occur naturally today. Scientists have to create it in the lab in order to study it. Since we can't go back in time to witness the evolution of nucleic acids, we will never be able to prove whether natural TNA made an appearance on Earth. Indeed, says Eschenmoser, "talking about TNA as a a possible ancestor of RNA is actually premature."

Of course. It's a possibility. It's no more unlikely then your statements that all codes require intellegence and the ONLY evidence for that is negative evidence.

coyote, has ANY leg of evolution ever been verified? 15o years and counting since Darwin and verification should just about be complete. That is, if the hypothesis/theory is true.

Yes. Transitional fossils, evidence of evolution in modern species have been witnessed and studied. 150 years of which how many have had the benefit of modern science particularly molecular biology and genetics which is advancing exponentially? We are talking of a very small time span indeed if we are truely talking science.

 

[Coyote]

coyote

Just for fun try this web site: randommutations.com. The hypothesis/theory of evolution requires random mutations to result in higher levels of complexity and higher levels of organization with passage of time. Instead random mutations produce gibberish over time.

Actually mutations aren't entirely random. Certain genes and sequences are weaker then others and more susceptable to damage which is why you see certain mutations arising over and over.

 

[numinus]

Entropy: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

I'm not talking about entropy in terms of 'order and disorder'. That is a naive way of looking at it.

Entropy, in thermodynamics, is a state of homogeneity in temprature and material density.

Entropy, in the statistical occurence of biological populations, is analogous to that.

The existence of our solar system itself, not to mention the proliferation of all the different kinds of organisms on the planet points to exactly the opposite of entropy.

 

[invest07]

coyote

Thanks for your tip about prions. These are interesting organisms and also very scary.

These protein particles arise from mutations. And some may be spread to other organisms. What makes these particles interesting is that, so far, no one has found any nucleic acid. They are scary because the normal methods of destroying infection, cancers and other cell and organism caused diseases don't work.

I read in detail the pro/con discussion on Nova On-line and the jury is still out on these guys. They are definitely the product of DNA, as they arise in certain animals, sheep and cows. But they appear to carry only information that was obtained from the parent animal. If they do indeed lack nucleic acid,
they are the only living organism who do. The "folded" particles (the bad ones that cause disease) can not reproduce in the traditional sense. They can't divide and form new individuals. But when they touch a "good" protien particle, the good one is somehow transformed into the bad. Apparently some enzyme contained in the bad prion spreads to the good prion and converts it. In this way, the bad prions can multiply. But prions, by themselves, can't produce a second generation. New prions must be produced by the parent animal.

As to the information contained in them, there is no other known source for it other than the parents animal's DNA. If prions have no nucleic acid, then the information may be carried by enzyme sequence. Not enough is known about these guys to reach any definitive conclusion.

As to these guys being a forerunner of DNA, the probability is very low. Prions are a product of DNA so how could they be the parent? Either the chicken or the egg had to come first. And if prions can't produce a second generation.

The question of what is (and is not) a theory is a matter of definition and convention. My comments were not to spell out the specific reuirements of theories but rather to point out the flawed thinking of macroevolutionists.
The Nova article I referred to earlier contains a good explanation of the hypothesis to theory process which involves the perfection of a hypothesis.
The following quote is from David Bolton, Phd:

"People often assume that scientists are in the business of trying to prove hypotheses or theories. This assumption is incorrect because hypotheses can never be proved; they can only be disproved. A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproved and it is discarded. If it is not disproved after being tested in many different ways, we become more confident that it is correct. A hypothesis is valid as long as it explains the behavior of the system it describes, but it is always possible that it will have to be revised or discarded based on new results."

As to TalkOrigins, the problem with their transitional "tree of life" is that most of it is based on speculation and not actual fossils. A few years ago I reseached a sequence of their alleged transitions. I contacted the web site and asked what fossils these transitions were based upon. The told me that these transitions were based on morphological appearance. QWhen i pressed them on this issue, they couldn't cite one fossil in this sequence. So these alleged transitions are not based on facts, but on wishful speculation and guesses.

This site has proven itself to make statements that are not supported and any "information" taken from this site is effectively worthless.

As to Gould's article, doesn't the title itself say that it is not based on science? The title says a theory is also a fact. And then he procedds to convolute reality to support his flwaed statement. Macroevoutuion is an unproven hypothesis and is not a fact. And since no one can directly observe that past, interpretations do not establish fact.

I have heard crap like this for years from evolutionists delivered with a straight face, intended to decieve an unsuspecting public into thinking they have all the answers.

As to the TNA research at NASA, your defense says everything that needs to be said. It is not necessary to research feasible or probable topics. Only topics that may defend the established presupposition, evolution. And if this quack does pronounce his research a success, what has he accomplished?. He doesn't know if TNA ever existed or even could have existed. So after he finishes his research, we still don't have any answers. This research is a waste of money and exposes the thinking of evolutionists :
When you reach a deadend, just propose a new hypothesis, get more research dollars from the suckers and keep on truckin. No need to face reality here, just repeat the mantra that this is important research and it advances our knowledge and please be generous.

Predictable mutations are not the source of supposed improvements to a species. Every predictable mutation results in an impaired individual. Prions result in evetual death. Sickle cell anemia is fatal. These weak spots are well studied and produce deformities and never improvements.

Do you have any answers to my charge that evolution violates the entropy law of thermodynamics and the first law of biogenesis that does not source from TalkOrigins?

 

[Coyote]

coyote

Thanks for your tip about prions. These are interesting organisms and also very scary.

These protein particles arise from mutations. And some may be spread to other organisms. What makes these particles interesting is that, so far, no one has found any nucleic acid. They are scary because the normal methods of destroying infection, cancers and other cell and organism caused diseases don't work.

No they do not all arise from mutations. That's the whole point.

I read in detail the pro/con discussion on Nova On-line and the jury is still out on these guys. They are definitely the product of DNA, as they arise in certain animals, sheep and cows. But they appear to carry only information that was obtained from the parent animal. If they do indeed lack nucleic acid,
they are the only living organism who do. The "folded" particles (the bad ones that cause disease) can not reproduce in the traditional sense. They can't divide and form new individuals. But when they touch a "good" protien particle, the good one is somehow transformed into the bad. Apparently some enzyme contained in the bad prion spreads to the good prion and converts it. In this way, the bad prions can multiply. But prions, by themselves, can't produce a second generation. New prions must be produced by the parent animal.

That indicates some kind of code and that code is not DNA.

As to these guys being a forerunner of DNA, the probability is very low. Prions are a product of DNA so how could they be the parent? Either the chicken or the egg had to come first. And if prions can't produce a second generation.

What evidence do you have that all prions are the product of DNA? Perhaps they are one of the precursors that eventually became DNA? Like mitochondria in cells were once seperate organisms? They don't have to produce themselves to have a code. The very fact that they can transform proteins is code is it not? And that code is not DNA.

The question of what is (and is not) a theory is a matter of definition and convention. My comments were not to spell out the specific reuirements of theories but rather to point out the flawed thinking of macroevolutionists.
The Nova article I referred to earlier contains a good explanation of the hypothesis to theory process which involves the perfection of a hypothesis.
The following quote is from David Bolton, Phd:

"People often assume that scientists are in the business of trying to prove hypotheses or theories. This assumption is incorrect because hypotheses can never be proved; they can only be disproved. A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproved and it is discarded. If it is not disproved after being tested in many different ways, we become more confident that it is correct. A hypothesis is valid as long as it explains the behavior of the system it describes, but it is always possible that it will have to be revised or discarded based on new results."

The problem with all this is that evolution is still the best theory that fits all the available facts. Unless you want to throw in Deus ex Machina nothing else even comes close that could still be considered scientific.

As to TalkOrigins, the problem with their transitional "tree of life" is that most of it is based on speculation and not actual fossils. A few years ago I reseached a sequence of their alleged transitions. I contacted the web site and asked what fossils these transitions were based upon. The told me that these transitions were based on morphological appearance. QWhen i pressed them on this issue, they couldn't cite one fossil in this sequence. So these alleged transitions are not based on facts, but on wishful speculation and guesses.

I question some of this. Talk Origins lists sources and those sources are scientific articles - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs

TalkOrigins draws it's conclusions from the articles and conclusions of paleontologists (among others). I haven't seen sources from you. Can you argue against any of these sources that back up TalkOrigins arguments? This is not one person or website making these conclusions.

You discount morphology as "wishful speculation" - why? Morphology is one of many methods used to determine transitional forms and indeed morphology is a powerful tool in determining species relationships though by no means the only tool since species occupying similar niches develop similar morphologies. In the case of transitional fossils however, when you can see clear changes in structures ocurring over a timeline that is pretty clear that transitions are occuring - from fish to amphibian and certain structures are evident linking them.

This site has proven itself to make statements that are not supported and any "information" taken from this site is effectively worthless.

I don't know where you come up with this because the site lists many scientific sources supporting it's statements. Why don't you counter the arguments instead of the site?

 

[Coyote]

As to Gould's article, doesn't the title itself say that it is not based on science? The title says a theory is also a fact. And then he procedds to convolute reality to support his flwaed statement. Macroevoutuion is an unproven hypothesis and is not a fact. And since no one can directly observe that past, interpretations do not establish fact.

It makes distinctions between what is considered scientific "theory" and scientific "fact" which is different then the commonly used terms of theory and fact. I am not clear on what you are saying at all.

I have heard crap like this for years from evolutionists delivered with a straight face, intended to decieve an unsuspecting public into thinking they have all the answers.

Well, it is probably easier to call it crap then debate it, but I think defaulting to God is just as much crap and certainly not science.

As to the TNA research at NASA, your defense says everything that needs to be said. It is not necessary to research feasible or probable topics. Only topics that may defend the established presupposition, evolution. And if this quack does pronounce his research a success, what has he accomplished?. He doesn't know if TNA ever existed or even could have existed.

If TNA can be created then it is certainly possible it could have existed naturally. Will it ever be proved beyond a doubt? Who knows. But that doesn't mean it may never be. It's simply another small brick that may support evolution. So far, your entire premise is based on negative evidence, not science.

So after he finishes his research, we still don't have any answers. This research is a waste of money and exposes the thinking of evolutionists :
When you reach a deadend, just propose a new hypothesis, get more research dollars from the suckers and keep on truckin. No need to face reality here, just repeat the mantra that this is important research and it advances our knowledge and please be generous.

So any research that might advance our understanding of evolution is simply a waste of money. Somehow, for all your vaunted words I do not think you are a scientist at all.

Your mind is made up.

You restrict yourself to evidence that supports your conclusions and discard anything else.

Scientists do not start with a conclusion and then gather evidence to support it. They start with evidence and form a conclusion based on that evidence.

Predictable mutations are not the source of supposed improvements to a species. Every predictable mutation results in an impaired individual. Prions result in evetual death. Sickle cell anemia is fatal. These weak spots are well studied and produce deformities and never improvements.

That is incorrect. Sickle cell anemia for example had a survival benefit in it's heterozygous form in countries where malaria is endemic. You need to do your research.

Do you have any answers to my charge that evolution violates the entropy law of thermodynamics and the first law of biogenesis that does not source from TalkOrigins?

Why don't you counter what TalkOrigins said? Or provide some scientific sources backing your claims?