Science Disproves Evolution

[Ahso!]

More poppycock and no substance again, huh, Pahu. It's too bad that a person such as yourself, who doesn't question what he reads, cannot make smarter choices concerning reading material. Remember what I said earlier in the thread about being a taker of orders. When was the first time you were ordered to shut up and just read? I know the marines reinforced the idea of not thinking and only reacting, but think back to before that, where did it actually begin? Do you have what it takes to answer that question, marine?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1347485 wrote: More poppycock and no substance again, huh, Pahu. It's too bad that a person such as yourself, who doesn't question what he reads, cannot make smarter choices concerning reading material. Remember what I said earlier in the thread about being a taker of orders. When was the first time you were ordered to shut up and just read? I know the marines reinforced the idea of not thinking and only reacting, but think back to before that, where did it actually begin? Do you have what it takes to answer that question, marine?


It appears the poppycock and lack of substance is coming from you. Could it be that since you are unable to give a rational response to the information I am sharing, you resort to erroneous accusations, claims and assertions as a substitute?

[Ahso!]

There's nothing to respond to. So far, you've proven yourself to be a fraud. You started out promising us science, and all you've offered is opinion and conjecture. I'm still waiting for you to point us to peer reviewed scientific evidence. Do you not know what that means?

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu, quoting some guy with a website isn't "science."

One could equally post a thread "religion disproves creationism" and quote some guy who calls himself "religious," who also says that evolution is correct.

IIRC the previous pope acknowledged this fact not too long ago, and he's more than just some guy with a website.

All the arguments you've posted have been refuted many times over. Try expanding your reading list.

Amazon.com: Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (9780262610377): Philip Kitcher: Books

[littleCJelkton]

Pahu;1347461 wrote:

Codes, Programs, and Information 3




Life contains matter, energy, and information (e).

e. How can we measure information? A computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. Information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u” that directly follows a “q”. If compression could be accomplished to the maximum extent possible (eliminating all redundancies and unnecessary information), the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or widget.

Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log24 = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.

Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.

While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.

“Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.” Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics; or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1948), p. 132.

Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3×10^24 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 15. Codes, Programs, and Information




Well, I do agree a Good sandwich is made with premium delicatessen meats and cheeses, but that in no way proves white bread is better than wheat.

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1347489 wrote: There's nothing to respond to. So far, you've proven yourself to be a fraud. You started out promising us science, and all you've offered is opinion and conjecture. I'm still waiting for you to point us to peer reviewed scientific evidence. Do you not know what that means?


Yes. The information I am sharing is supported by scientists. I haven't been sharing in this forum long enough to reveal all of them, but if I am here long enough, you will see confirmation from the following:



Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1347573 wrote: Yes. The information I am sharing is supported by scientists. I haven't been sharing in this forum long enough to reveal all of them, but if I am here long enough, you will see confirmation from the following:



Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and ArtsOkay, lets go back then to Michael Behe and Irreducible Complexity, the very first thing you listed in your original promise to prove evolution is a hoax. Show us peer reviewed science from Behe. I've read both of his books and see nothing that proves Irreducible Complexity. If I've missed it, direct me to the page, please.

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1347582 wrote: Okay, lets go back then to Michael Behe and Irreducible Complexity, the very first thing you listed in your original promise to prove evolution is a hoax. Show us peer reviewed science from Behe. I've read both of his books and see nothing that proves Irreducible Complexity. If I've missed it, direct me to the page, please.


If I were you, I would start at page one and proceed to the end of his book. Perhaps your inability to recognize proof is more a matter of not wanting to admit anything that doesn't support what you want to believe. He has published in Quarterly Review of Biology. As to Behe's inability to publish responses to his critics, here is an excerpt from his answer to them:

Much of the material shown posted as "responses to critics" on this website was originally submitted to several science journals for consideration for publication. In every case it was turned down. Below I have included the correspondence between the journals and myself. Names of journals and individuals have been omitted. The take-home lesson I have learned is that, while some science journal editors are individually tolerant and will entertain thoughts of publishing challenges to current views, when a group (such as the editorial board) gets together, orthodoxy prevails. Admittedly the conclusion is based on a small number of experiences, yet years go by while the experiences accumulate. So far my experience with philosophy journals has been quite different, and I have published a reply to specific criticisms in Philosophy of Science. (Behe, Michael J. (2000). Self-organization and irreducibly complex systems: A reply to Shanks and Joplin. Philosophy of Science 67, 155-162.)

You can find the rest of his response here:

Correspondence with Science Journals:Response to Critics Concerning Peer-Review: Behe, Michael

[Ahso!]

Question: What does it tell you if science journals are refusing to publish what Behe writes?

Answer: His peers reject what he says.

As for his books: I've read from page one to the end of both books, nowhere does Behe prove his hypothesis, in fact Behe admits it would take (a convenient) 20,000 years to prove his point, which is untrue. If I'm wrong, either show me where I'm wrong or admit Irreducible Complexity is not valid science.

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1347598 wrote: Question: What does it tell you if science journals are refusing to publish what Behe writes?

Answer: His peers reject what he says.


As he pointed out, they wouldn't accept his answer to his critics because they didn't want their preconceptions threatened.

As for his books: I've read from page one to the end of both books, nowhere does Behe prove his hypothesis, in fact Behe admits it would take (a convenient) 20,000 years to prove his point, which is untrue. If I'm wrong, either show me where I'm wrong or admit Irreducible Complexity is not valid science.


On page 39 of Darwin's Black Box he defines IC as; "A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." He then explains how his experiments as a biochemist proves the microbes on which he experimented and studied could not function if they were missing any parts. I'm not sure how you can get more scientific than that.

Your claim that he said it would take (a convenient) 20,000 years to prove his point is a distortion. What he said in response to critics accusing his thesis as being “unfalsifiable” was:

"In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven."

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1347624 wrote: As he pointed out, they wouldn't accept his answer to his critics because they didn't want their preconceptions threatened.



On page 39 of Darwin's Black Box he defines IC as; "A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." He then explains how his experiments as a biochemist proves the microbes on which he experimented and studied could not function if they were missing any parts. I'm not sure how you can get more scientific than that.

Your claim that he said it would take (a convenient) 20,000 years to prove his point is a distortion. What he said in response to critics accusing his thesis as being “unfalsifiable” was:

"In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven."So there you have it, Pahu, when Behe's peers are critical of his work and come to other conclusions, it is they who are wrong. You began this thread claiming science disproves evolution, but what you proven is that science confirms evolution. What you've done is take a few rogue scientists and said their work, which cannot pass muster in the scientific community, is valid when it has been shown not to be.

You're a fraud, it's that simple. Yet you continue your charade unabashed. Have you no dignity?

This is probably a waste of time but:



The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

The Type -III Secretory Apparatus

In the popular imagination, bacteria are "germs" – tiny microscopic bugs that make us sick. Microbiologists smile at that generalization, knowing that most bacteria are perfectly benign, and many are beneficial – even essential – to human life. Nonetheless, there are indeed bacteria that produce diseases, ranging from the mildly unpleasant to the truly dangerous. Pathogenic, or disease-causing, bacteria threaten the organisms they infect in a variety of ways, one of which is to produce poisons and inject them directly into the cells of the body. Once inside, these toxins break down and destroy the host cells, producing illness, tissue damage, and sometimes even death.

In order to carry out this diabolical work, bacteria must not only produce the protein toxins that bring about the demise of their hosts, but they must efficiently inject them across the cell membranes and into the cells of their hosts. They do this by means of any number of specialized protein secretory systems. One, known as the type III secretory system (TTSS), allows gram negative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell (Heuck 1998). The proteins transferred through the TTSS include a variety of truly dangerous molecules, some of which are known as "virulence factors," and are directly responsible for the pathogenic activity of some of the most deadly bacteria in existence (Büttner and Bonas 2002; Heuck 1998).

At first glance, the existence of the TTSS, a nasty little device that allows bacteria to inject these toxins through the cell membranes of its unsuspecting hosts, would seem to have little to do with the flagellum. However, molecular studies of proteins in the TTSS have revealed a surprising fact – the proteins of the TTSS are directly homologous to the proteins in the basal portion of the bacterial flagellum. As figure 2 (Heuck 1998) shows, these homologies extend to a cluster of closely-associated proteins found in both of these molecular "machines." On the basis of these homologies, McNab (McNab 1999) has argued that the flagellum itself should be regarded as a type III secretory system. Extending such studies with a detailed comparison of the proteins associated with both systems, Aizawa has seconded this suggestion, noting that the two systems "consist of homologous component proteins with common physico-chemical properties" (Aizawa 2001, 163). It is now clear, therefore, that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS.

Stated directly, the TTSS does its dirty work using a handful of proteins from the base of the flagellum. From the evolutionary point of view, this relationship is hardly surprising. In fact, it's to be expected that the opportunism of evolutionary processes would mix and match proteins to produce new and novel functions. According to the doctrine of irreducible complexity, however, this should not be possible. If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what remains "by definition nonfunctional." Yet the TTSS is indeed fully-functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum. The TTSS may be bad news for us, but for the bacteria that possess it, it is a truly valuable biochemical machine.

The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed.

Source: The Flagellum Unspun

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 4



All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly (f). Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

Macroevolution cannot occur (g).

Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life (h).

Life could not result from a “big bang” (i).

f. Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3×10^24 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Ibid., p. 107.

g. Because macroevolution requires increasing complexity through natural processes, the organism’s information content must spontaneously increase many times. However, natural processes cannot significantly increase the information content of an isolated system, such as a reproductive cell. Therefore, macroevolution cannot occur.

“The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.” Gitt, p. 124.

h. Based on modern advances in the field of information theory, the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. [See, for example, Charles H. Bennett, “Demons, Engines and the Second Law,” Scientific American, Vol. 257, November 1987, pp. 108–116.] Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being. [See also ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 55. Second Law of Thermodynamics

i. If the “big bang” occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science. Random, chaotic movements of gas molecules contain virtually no useful information. Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang” could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 15. Codes, Programs, and Information

[Ahso!]

Pahu (or can I just call you Walt - that is your name, isn't it. I take it you don't mind me unmasking you.), please answer the following questions.

1) How does one determine whether or not the work of a given scientist is valid?

2) When scientists disagree, how should we determine which one is right?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1347629 wrote: So there you have it, Pahu, when Behe's peers are critical of his work and come to other conclusions, it is they who are wrong.


Yes, when they lack the evidence supporting their criticism.

You began this thread claiming science disproves evolution, but what you proven is that science confirms evolution.


In what way?

What you've done is take a few rogue scientists and said their work, which cannot pass muster in the scientific community, is valid when it has been shown not to be.


What "rogue scientists" are you referring to? Since they have published in science journals, in what way have they not "passed muster"?

You're a fraud, it's that simple. Yet you continue your charade unabashed. Have you no dignity?


Do you consider name calling and insults a valid substitute for rational response?

This is probably a waste of time but:

Source: The Flagellum Unspun




Ken Miller’s attempts to refute Behe is refuted by Behe in the following excerpts. The complete articles can be viewed by following the links:

In Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I devoted a chapter to the mechanism of blood clotting, arguing that it is irreducibly complex and therefore a big problem for Darwinian evolution. Since my book came out, as far as I am aware there have been no papers published in the scientific literature giving a detailed scenario or experiments to show how natural selection could have built the system. However three scientists publishing outside science journals have attempted to respond. The first is Russell Doolittle, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California at San Diego, member of the National Academy of Sciences, and expert on blood clotting. Second is Kenneth Miller, a professor of cell biology at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin’s God (Miller 1999). The third scientist is Keith Robison, who at the time of his writing was a graduate student at Harvard University.

Behe responds to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison

The second and more important point is that, while the paper is very interesting, it doesn’t address irreducible complexity. Either Miller hasn’t read what I said in my book about metabolic pathways, or he is deliberately ignoring it. I clearly stated in Darwin’s Black Box metabolic pathways are not irreducibly complex (Behe 1996, pp. 141-142; 150-151), because components can be gradually added to a previous pathway. Thus metabolic pathways simply aren’t in the same category as the blood clotting cascade or the bacterial flagellum. Although Miller somehow misses the distinction, other scientists do not. In a recent paper Thornhill and Ussery write that something they call serial-direct-Darwinian-evolution “cannot generate irreducibly complex structures.” But they think it may be able to generate a reducible structure, “such as the TCA cycle (Behe, 1996 a, b).” (Thornhill and Ussery 2000) In other words Thornhill and Ussery acknowledge the TCA cycle is not irreducibly complex, as I wrote in my book. Miller seems unable or unwilling to grasp that point.

Behe on Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature

In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I coined the term “irreducible complexity” in order to point out an apparent problem for the Darwinian evolution of some biochemical and cellular systems. In brief, an irreducibly complex system is one that needs several well-matched parts, all working together, to perform its function. The reason that such systems are headaches for Darwinism is that it is a gradualistic theory, wherein improvements can only be made step by tiny step[1], with no thought for their future utility. I argued that a number of biochemical systems, such as the blood clotting cascade, intracellular transport system, and bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore recalcitrant to gradual construction, and so they fit poorly within a Darwinian framework. Instead I argued they are best explained as the products of deliberate intelligent design.

A Mousetrap Defended: Behe responds to Critics

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1347632 wrote: Pahu (or can I just call you Walt - that is your name, isn't it.


No, but if you wish to add that to your lengthening list of erroneous notions, enjoy!

I take it you don't mind me unmasking you.), please answer the following questions.

1) How does one determine whether or not the work of a given scientist is valid?


One way is to compare his evidence to reality. Another is if he publishes in peer reviewed science journals.

2) When scientists disagree, how should we determine which one is right?


The one who's evidence agrees with reality.

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu;1347756 wrote:

What "rogue scientists" are you referring to? Since they have published in science journals, in what way have they not "passed muster"?




You seriously listed Stephen Hawking as supporting creationism?

Remember, when you lie, it makes Jesus sad:

[Ahso!]

To be fair, he doesn't know what he posted because he copied and pasted it from someplace else. I looked at his list, checked out a few of the names and not one is a creationist, in fact they support evolution. He's just throwing anything against the wall and seeing what will get by.

Walt is getting clobbered in every forum where objective people are members, but he just keeps on going like a robot. He's trying to promote his book which he keeps pasting excepts of here and everywhere else. As is his pattern here, Walt rarely responds legitimately, and when he does respond, its with another question, a token answer or circular reasoning.

What I hope happens is, after he spends all this time doing this copy/paste campaign, is that at least some of the forums erase his threads. That would be poetic justice.

[Pahu]

yaaarrrgg;1347766 wrote: You seriously listed Stephen Hawking as supporting creationism?

Remember, when you lie, it makes Jesus sad:




Where did I list Stephen Hawking as supporting creationism?

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu;1347787 wrote: Where did I list Stephen Hawking as supporting creationism?


Just a few posts ago:

Yes. The information I am sharing is supported by scientists. I haven't been sharing in this forum long enough to reveal all of them, but if I am here long enough, you will see confirmation from the following:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.


I think this proves Ahso's point that you aren't even reading what you are copying and pasting.

[Pahu]

yaaarrrgg;1347792 wrote: Just a few posts ago:



I think this proves Ahso's point that you aren't even reading what you are copying and pasting.


Where is there anything in that list that claims Hawking supports creationism?

[Ahso!]

Ahso! wrote: 1) How does one determine whether or not the work of a given scientist is valid? Pahu;1347761 wrote: One way is to compare his evidence to reality.And your reality is that there is a creator (or as you folk like to say - a designer), and so the science which uncovers evidence in support of that reality is the correct science? Pahu;1347761 wrote: Another is if he publishes in peer reviewed science journals.And if the peer review journals reject the work of said scientist? For example, Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity was rejected by all peer review journals, as was anything by Walter Brown, and yet you continue to defend both and refer to them as science. Not one thing you've posted here has any peer review in any recognized science journal. Can you see where some of your hypocrisy lies now?

Ahso! wrote: 2) When scientists disagree, how should we determine which one is right?
Pahu;1347761 wrote: The one who's evidence agrees with reality.Since you're being redundant, so will I be.

And your reality is that there is a creator (or as you folk like to say - a designer), and so the science which uncovers evidence in support of that reality is the correct science?

However, it does not surprise me that you did not say, the scientist whose work concurs with that of other scientists.

mydictionary wrote: Science Sci"ence, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis,

p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious,

Nice.]

1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained

truth of facts.Can you see in that definition, Pahu, where truth and fact are ascertained through science. See your mistake?

This is where your entire argument falls apart even before you bother stating any of your erroneous conjectures. You (Brown) and Behe fall short of your own criteria and fail your own test.

[Pahu]

Merry

Christmas!

TURN UP YOUR SPEAKERS AND WATCH CLOSELY

YouTube - AlphabetPhotography's Channel

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1347798 wrote:

And your reality is that there is a creator (or as you folk like to say - a designer), and so the science which uncovers evidence in support of that reality is the correct science?


Not quite. My reality is what has been demonstrated by the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, which supports creation, as I have been demonstrating.

And if the peer review journals reject the work of said scientist? For example, Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity was rejected by all peer review journals, as was anything by Walter Brown, and yet you continue to defend both and refer to them as science. Not one thing you've posted here has any peer review in any recognized science journal. Can you see where some of your hypocrisy lies now?


It is my understanding that science journals only accept material from scientists. That does not mean they will accept material from all scientists, especially if they are presented with information that conflicts with what they want to believe. That has been Behe’s and Brown’s experience, which is similar to Galileo’s experience in the Middle Ages. Moreover, you might not have noticed that the scientists Brown quotes, who confirm his conclusions, have published in peer reviewed science journals such as Nature, Science, etc.

Since you're being redundant, so will I be.

And your reality is that there is a creator (or as you folk like to say - a designer), and so the science which uncovers evidence in support of that reality is the correct science?

However, it does not surprise me that you did not say, the scientist whose work concurs with that of other scientists.


Simply because my definition of reality is determined by scientists whose work concurs with that of other scientists who agree that science supports creation and disproves evolution. Not all scientists have examined evolution. They accept it because that is what they have been led to believe and in many cases they would have not received their degree had they not accepted the idea.

Originally Posted by mydictionary

Science Sci"ence, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis,

p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious,

Nice.]

1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained

truth of facts.

Can you see in that definition, Pahu, where truth and fact are ascertained through science. See your mistake?


It doesn’t say that. It says science is knowledge of principles and causes, which ascertain the truth OF facts. A more complete definition of science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.



This is where your entire argument falls apart even before you bother stating any of your erroneous conjectures. You (Brown) and Behe fall short of your own criteria and fail your own test.


Only in your imagination.

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu;1347952 wrote:

It is my understanding that science journals only accept material from scientists. That does not mean they will accept material from all scientists, especially if they are presented with information that conflicts with what they want to believe. That has been Behe’s and Brown’s experience, which is similar to Galileo’s experience in the Middle Ages. Moreover, you might not have noticed that the scientists Brown quotes, who confirm his conclusions, have published in peer reviewed science journals such as Nature, Science, etc.




lol ... Yes that was a case of religion being too blinded by dogma to understand the science. Good example. Darwin is another.

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu;1347797 wrote: Where is there anything in that list that claims Hawking supports creationism?


Why then did you post his name, along with other scientists that support evolution?

[Pahu]

yaaarrrgg;1348111 wrote: Why then did you post his name, along with other scientists that support evolution?


Most of the scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions believe in evolution, which makes them more believable since they are simply reporting facts they have discovered that suggest evolution cannot happen. I posted that list to share the number of scientists being quoted.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1348127 wrote: Most of the scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions believe in evolution, which makes them more believable since they are simply reporting facts they have discovered that suggest evolution cannot happen. I posted that list to share the number of scientists being quoted.Provide some evidence where Hawking agrees with Brown.

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1348128 wrote: Provide some evidence where Hawking agrees with Brown.


“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu;1348172 wrote: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.


You've chopped off the context of the quote:

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]




Here's another:



What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]


Sorry Pahu, nowadays with the internet, it's harder to get away with your brand of nonsense.

[Pahu]

yaaarrrgg;1348223 wrote:

You've chopped off the context of the quote:

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]


He is speculating. He starts by musing that “So long as [if] the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Then he continues by inventing a totally unsupported idea as to how the universe could exist without a creator. His idea is in conflict with known laws of physics.

The fact remains that his first sentence is valid: If the universe did have a beginning it would have to have a creator.

Here's another:

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]


And what are those laws of science that determined how the universe began: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

Since there was nothing before the existence of the universe, wouldn’t that include gravity? I really feel sorry for Hawking’s terrible illness, but despite his genius, I wonder if it hasn’t affected his ability to think clearly and logically.



Sorry Yaaarrrgg, nowadays with the internet, it's harder to get away with your brand of nonsense.

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu;1348403 wrote:

The fact remains that his first sentence is valid: If the universe did have a beginning it would have to have a creator.




That's not what he said. He said we could assume this, and you missed the point. You are only convincing yourself with your delusions.

[Ahso!]

Straw man. Follow the conversation, Pahu. Let's take a look, shall we.

You said:

Pahu;1348127 wrote: Most of the scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions believe in evolution, which makes them more believable since they are simply reporting facts they have discovered that suggest evolution cannot happen. I posted that list to share the number of scientists being quoted.


To which I said:

Ahso!;1348128 wrote: Provide some evidence where Hawking agrees with Brown.


Then you came back with the straw man:

Pahu;1348172 wrote: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.


Let's try again, I'll make it more explicit for you: Show us where Hawking agrees with what you've been copying and pasting from Brown's book.

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1348414 wrote: Straw man. Follow the conversation, Pahu. Let's take a look, shall we.

You said:



To which I said:



Then you came back with the straw man:



Let's try again, I'll make it more explicit for you: Show us where Hawking agrees with what you've been copying and pasting from Brown's book.


A Beginning

Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)a.

a. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 53. A Beginning

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1348419 wrote: A Beginning

Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)a.

a. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 53. A BeginningYou're going to keep erecting the straw man, then.

Let's see a quote from Hawking where he references Walter Brown directly.

[Pahu]

Compatible Senders and Receivers



Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences who completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 16. Compatible Senders and Receivers

[Pahu]

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1



When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve. They call this convergent evolution.

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptile’s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)—but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease.

Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

a. “...the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).” Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.” Sid Perkins, “Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

[From “In the Beginnng” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 17. Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design?

[Ahso!]

You can't respond to my last post, Pahu? Man up, son.

[Pahu]

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2



Furthermore, it is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c. “By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship...it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units...” Nilsson, p. 1143.

“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d. Fix, pp. 189–191.

Denton, pp. 142–155.

“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. [emphasis in original] It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.” [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e. “Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 13.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 17. Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design?

[Ahso!]

Ahso!;1348420 wrote: You're going to keep erecting the straw man, then.

Let's see a quote from Hawking where he references Walter Brown directly.Come on Pahu, where's the evidence of Hawkins referencing Brown? Let's go, marine!

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1348768 wrote:

Furthermore, it is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution...




You don't seem to see how riduculously illogical this statement appears.

You cannot use science that you don't understand to argue against science that you don't understand.

It is quite logical, actually to imply that similarities in the genetic code support both design and evolution, as opposed to an either/or.

[Pahu]

Vestigial Organs



Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix plays a role in antibody production, protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths (c), and safely stores “good bacteria” that can replenish the intestines following bouts of diarrhea, for example (d). Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

a. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution....An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe, “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).

c. “The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.” Gordon McHardy, “The Appendix,” Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.



“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system. ” N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

d. “...the human appendix is well suited as a ‘safe house’ for commensal bacteria, providing support for bacterial growth and potentially facilitating re-inoculation of the colon in the event that the contents of the intestinal track are purged following exposure to a pathogen....the appendix...is not a vestige.” R. Randal Bollinger et. al., “Biofilms in the Large Bowel Suggest an Apparent Function of the Human Vermiform Appendix,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 249, 2007, p. 826.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 18. Vestigial Organs

[Pahu]

Two-Celled Life?



Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.



Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 19. Two-Celled Life?

[Ahso!]

Ahso!;1348876 wrote: Come on Pahu, where's the evidence of Hawkins referencing Brown? Let's go, marine!Bump! At least admit that you can't come up with a reference.

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1349707 wrote: Bump! At least admit that you can't come up with a reference.


As far as I know, Hawking has never made any direct reference to Brown about anything. Do you believe that means the information Hawking has published has no relation to Brown's conclusion that the universe had a beginning when he stated:

“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141?

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1349723 wrote: As far as I know, Hawking has never made any direct reference to Brown about anything. Do you believe that means the information Hawking has published has no relation to Brown's conclusion that the universe had a beginning when he stated:

“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141?Everyone owns snippets and sentences that can be interpreted as agreeing with something, especially when taken out of context. I'd bet that you have at times uttered sentences, even full paragraphs that can be seen as agreeing with say, atheism or evolution, and I could make that appear it's what defines you.

But, to be clear, you agree that Hawking can not be said to concur, as in peer review, with any of Brown's pseudo scientific findings as recorded in Brown's book, is that correct?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1349729 wrote: Everyone owns snippets and sentences that can be interpreted as agreeing with something, especially when taken out of context. I'd bet that you have at times uttered sentences, even full paragraphs that can be seen as agreeing with say, atheism or evolution, and I could make that appear it's what defines you.

But, to be clear, you agree that Hawking can not be said to concur, as in peer review, with any of Brown's pseudo scientific findings as recorded in Brown's book, is that correct?


What is "pseudo scientific" about Brown's information?

The quote by Hawking does indeed agree with Brown's scientific conclusion.

[Saint_]

Pahu...ostriches like yourself make me tired.

You pound us all over the head that Evolution, the most obvious and likely reason we all are the way we are, and something we have seen at work in our history, (See: the Samurai Crabs of Japan) is all wrong and you are right.

OK. We get that.

Now: Explain PRECISELY what you think really happened. You love to scoff at our science and insult our intelligence. Put out what YOU think happened so we can all have a laugh at your expense for once.

Is the Earth only 5000 years old? How do you account for the fossil record? It's all just stage dressing? Did all life "MAGICALLY" appear completely formed at that time. Why have dinosaurs at all if they are going to go extinct? Or was that just a "trial run?" How did that whole "Adam and Eve" thing work out in your opinion? (Without any incest of course):-3 Is it possible to populate an entire planet starting with only two people? Don't you need a larger gene pool? Do you believe that Earth is the ONLY PLANET WITH LIFE IN THE ENTIRE GALAXY? THE UNIVERSE?

I see tons of people who love to belittle and scoff at Evolution...but then refuse to put forth their own beliefs!

Is that because they are COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL AND TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE WITHIN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS?! Most likely.

Go ahead...explain life...I dare you.:sneaky:

[K.Snyder]

Pahu;1346565 wrote: You ask a lot of questions based on your preconceive assertions. I will answer one of them: "Does God exist?"

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” ]Reincarnation in the Bible? - iUniverseEverything is life Pahu. You're defining "life" as being some phenomenon that only a select few have been rewarded to have it which is a contradiction to your logic. Rocks have every means to be life forms, they just miss quite an extensive supply of all of the other elements that make us what we are which includes the make up of those very same rocks.

How's it that you can expect everything that lives have been rewarded this by some sort of divine creation yet suggest "God" doesn't exist?

Hydrogen is life, Oxygen is life, Carbon is life, Angelina Joe Lee's fecal matter is life. EVERYTHING is life!

Why people feel God doesn't logically exist alongside Evolution is an assumption I find to be so incredibly ignorant it beggars disbelief

[Saint_]

Life either:

1. Began through a combination of amino acids and electricity and evolved to greater and greater complexity or

2. Came to Earth in the form of spores riding on asteroids.

It did not "magically appear."

[Pahu]

Saint_;1349824 wrote:

Pahu...ostriches like yourself make me tired.

You pound us all over the head that Evolution, the most obvious and likely reason we all are the way we are, and something we have seen at work in our history, (See: the Samurai Crabs of Japan) is all wrong and you are right.

OK. We get that.

Now: Explain PRECISELY what you think really happened. You love to scoff at our science and insult our intelligence. Put out what YOU think happened so we can all have a laugh at your expense for once.

Is the Earth only 5000 years old?


Scientific evidence indicates it is no older than about 10,000 years. For details go here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 64. Corals and Caves

and here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

How do you account for the fossil record?


Scientific evidence indicates it was laid down during the flood.

For details go here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to

and here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery

and here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Details Relating to the Hydroplate Theory

It's all just stage dressing? Did all life "MAGICALLY" appear completely formed at that time.


Yes.

Why have dinosaurs at all if they are going to go extinct? Or was that just a "trial run?"


Your guess is as good as mine.

How did that whole "Adam and Eve" thing work out in your opinion? (Without any incest of course) Is it possible to populate an entire planet starting with only two people? Don't you need a larger gene pool?


I believe God created mankind in His own image, which includes mind, spirit, and free will. He created us all at the same time as spirit beings. A third of us decided our way was better than His, so instead of zapping us on the spot, He chose to let us prove to ourselves and the rest of creation which way is better. He created the earth with all the raw material necessary for us to survive and build a perfect society and has given us a few thousand years to demonstrate how much better our way is.

He provided us with physical, three-dimensional bodies. Several million of us were placed on earth. This described in Genesis 1:26-27. The Garden of Eden story is a symbolic review of this event.

Do you believe that Earth is the ONLY PLANET WITH LIFE IN THE ENTIRE GALAXY? THE UNIVERSE?


As we know it, yes.

I see tons of people who love to belittle and scoff at Evolution...but then refuse to put forth their own beliefs!

Is that because they are COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL AND TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE WITHIN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS?! Most likely.

Go ahead...explain life...I dare you.


Evolution has been shown to be totally impossible within the known laws of physics and biology as I have been sharing.

For details go here:In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - index.html