[rmhumphries]

(Original post by Jason2)
You're now just begging the question on how do 'living' things come about from 'non-living' things? The four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. If a single one of these altered slightly, then well life simply would not exist. You simply cannot explain why the universe is set up so brilliantly to support intelligent life. And if your gonna propose it was all a 'lucky' accident then please don't. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that disorder and chaos can create such order. Our own experiences show that it usually creates havoc, not order.

And in regards to gravity, it always has the right force. Even at the the big bang it had the right force, for that's how stars and galaxies were made, by gravity pulling the clump of atoms together. If this force was either too weak or too strong then I doubt we'd even be here to observe anything.

Playing the odds. Life needs 1billion to 1 odds to exist, there are many billions of billions of planets. So one will meet the right criteria in terms of temperature, atmosphere and so on to support life. As for how living cells start from non-living cells in a supportable environment, there are several theories, which I don't know much about, as it doesn't interest me much.

(Original post by Jason2)
Let me ask you: If I blew up a building, would it create a better building? It wouldn't, would it. It would destroy it. This is the point I'm getting at. Disorder and chaos do not create order.

It might give better use of the land. If you blew up a building, it wouldn't be a building, but then if the land was clear of the rubble, and the building was unused - you could make a childrens playground, much better use for the land than an unused building.

[Craig_D]

Whether God exists or not, the way DNA works is how we would logically expect it to work because complex animals exist. Your central point makes the fallacy of begging the question:

1) For humans to have complex DNA, God would have to exist
2) Humans have complex DNA
3) God exists

You haven't demonstrated anywhere in this that your assumption that humans can only have complex DNA if God exists is accurate. It's hardly like in a universe without God you would expect an organism like a human to have simple DNA, is it? The existence of an organism as complex as a mammal wouldn't be even possible if DNA couldn't be naturally complex, which therefore means that in actuality your central point is simply, 'Complex life exists, therefore God does', which is a fatuous logical leap. You've assumed too much and proved nothing.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Jason2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG4LWFMRYrc

Fast-forward to 6.15 and the cosmologist will tell you these forces need to be exact.

no, they need to be exact in order to recreate conditions (the life) as we know it today...
to my knowledge they are mainly trying to say different variations could yield possibly very drastic outcomes, not neccessarily alteration in gravity/whatever=we dont exist anymore, look at the moon, it has a different gravitational field than the earth, yet those that have stepped foot on it did not die/'have their dna unravelled'/etc. this is in reference to chaos theory. the same way a gust of wind (an alteration) in london could possibly cause a storm in california. chaos exists around us, what does this have to do with the 'order' of which you speak?

[iluvmaths]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
Information is more fundamental to the universe than energy and matter...

i respectfully disagree! that is becasue, if im not wrong, information is energy, which is inturn matter! all three are the same. hence, they are all of the same importance. without one, the others do not exist, hence all are fundamental.

[onda]

[CasualSoul]

(Original post by studiousgeek)
I'd actually have to know how your defining information to make a sensible comment.

It sounds like your saying information is a message that originates from an intelligent being, in which case if you can prove that DNA originates from an intelligent being then you could call it 'information'.

This is not the usual, technical definition of information, however. Usually, information is defined as a sequence that is capable of being interpreted by intelligence. This does not require an intelligent originator, merely an intelligent observer.

In yet another sense, scientists gain much of their information about the universe from non-intelligent sources. There is information in the spectrum of magnetic waves emitted from a star but it is unlikely that means stars are sentient.

I believe there is an intelligent designer but even so the way in which you justify your viewpoint is really sophisticated- what you say makes sense

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
Lets think outside the box here... what about the laws of nature? How did they become about? I mean, gravity is always the same. The speed of light remains constant. Why is there no mutation of these laws? For if evolution is true on earth, then it must also exist in space. Yet we don't see that.

There is nothing even remotely similar between DNA and the laws of physics. DNA is not the "laws of biology." Physics is not the DNA of the world. You could just as easily made a parallel between granite and fishing.

The things like gravity and speed of light are just scientific descriptions of events that happen around us. Gravity on earth is 9.8 m/s^2. However, if something happens to the planet, gravity could just as easily change to 1.4 m/s^2 or something else.

Again I stress, it is RIDICULOUS that you would attempt to disprove evolution by saying "gravity doesn't change." I hope you realize this. Evolution is the changes in species over time. So far, we know of no species that exist in space. Ergo your argument that evolution must be in space is idiotic because for evolution to be in space, there need to be life forms in space.

>>> How would you explain Homo habilis, Homo erectus, or any other predecessor to modern humans using the theory of inteligent design? <<<

[Jason2]

KasanDude, in regards to evolution, you have only ever shown me examples of adaption. You haven't shown me anything that shows new organisms being created. That is, from dead chemicals to us. Show me where new information is ever created from mutation. Granted, that, sometimes there is "beneficial" mutation, such as antibiotic resistance, but all these are losses of information, even though they give a survival advantage.

I'm afraid you've fallen into the trap of 'scientists say it's true so it must be', without providing any evidence whatsoever. Science is forever changing, yet you still maintain what you say is right. You contradict your own religion. People will one day laugh at the notion of evolution.

So shove your evolutionary dogma where the sun don't shine.

[Gwilym101]

To all the logical and intelligent people trying to tell this creationist that he is wrong. I'd advise you to stop, he doesn't understand mutation, he doesn't understand genetics, he doesn't understand adaptation, he thinks evolution is a religion as he keeps refering to dogma and thus doesn't understand any aspect of evolution whatsoever.

You will accomplish nothing but raising your blood pressure arguing with some who can't accept reality as he will simply say you are wrong no matter what evidence you give. Even if this evidence is backed up by more evidence from every relevant field of science, so save yourselves some bother, accept you're right and move on.

[ednut]

(Original post by Jason2)
Let me ask you: If I blew up a building, would it create a better building? It wouldn't, would it. It would destroy it. This is the point I'm getting at. Disorder and chaos do not create order.

I see your point but why would you compare disorder and chaos of what would happen to a building to what would happen on a galactic scale?

when we destory a building yes it will collapse and will not form a better building, the generally accepted theory of formation of Earth's moon is such that a mars-like-mass body co-orbital with venus-like-mass protoearth became unstable at the fifth Lagrangian point, and slammed in to protoearth on a side-swipe. The resulting material that splashed off of Earth formed the Moon. The end combination of what remained in the primary is that which we now call Earth.

see the difference there there are two totally different things gravity acts on things differently depending on the scale the building is not in space and gravity always tends to form matter in a spherical shape in space depending on its mass

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Jason2)
KasanDude, in regards to evolution, you have only ever shown me examples of adaption. You haven't shown me anything that shows new organisms being created. That is, from dead chemicals to us. Show me where new information is ever created from mutation. Granted, that, sometimes there is "beneficial" mutation, such as antibiotic resistance, but all these are losses of information, even though they give a survival advantage.

I'm afraid you've fallen into the trap of 'scientists say it's true so it must be', without providing any evidence whatsoever. Science is forever changing, yet you still maintain what you say is right. You contradict your own religion. People will one day laugh at the notion of evolution.

So shove your evolutionary dogma where the sun don't shine.

You did not reply to my post about the mechanisms behind beneficial mutations.

[LordFishlock]

(Original post by Jason2)
I want evidence from atheists that shows nature creates information.

I think I would agree.

[Logi]

(Original post by Jason2)
If the brain is solely responsible for consciousness, then yes, everything is an illusion. And eh, I've never murdered nor seen a murder (not at least in the flesh), but I still make the choice not commit such a crime for I know it's deeply wrong. Is that not free-will?

To your first point I'll go for the old "if a tree falls in a forest but no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?" and for your second I would say that you've had experiences that would lead you to believe there is value in human life combined with the ability to empathise with others.

(Original post by Gwilym101)
To all the logical and intelligent people trying to tell this creationist that he is wrong. I'd advise you to stop, he doesn't understand mutation, he doesn't understand genetics, he doesn't understand adaptation, he thinks evolution is a religion as he keeps refering to dogma and thus doesn't understand any aspect of evolution whatsoever.

You will accomplish nothing but raising your blood pressure arguing with some who can't accept reality as he will simply say you are wrong no matter what evidence you give. Even if this evidence is backed up by more evidence from every relevant field of science, so save yourselves some bother, accept you're right and move on.

I've come to the same conclusion. He doesn't counter any of our points with his own beliefs. Instead he just moves onto something else with the hope of finding something we don't have the answer to yet, to which he can reply "god did it". The fact that less than a hundred years ago we'd have already reached that point in the discussion just assures me that science will find an answer (other than a floaty beardy dude) within the next hundred. I also expect that it will be a significantly more elegant solution than anything his crusty old book can provide so there's no raised blood pressure on my part

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
KasanDude, in regards to evolution, you have only ever shown me examples of adaption. You haven't shown me anything that shows new organisms being created. That is, from dead chemicals to us. Show me where new information is ever created from mutation. Granted, that, sometimes there is "beneficial" mutation, such as antibiotic resistance, but all these are losses of information, even though they give a survival advantage.

I'm afraid you've fallen into the trap of 'scientists say it's true so it must be', without providing any evidence whatsoever. Science is forever changing, yet you still maintain what you say is right. You contradict your own religion. People will one day laugh at the notion of evolution.

So shove your evolutionary dogma where the sun don't shine.

Right... so you HAVEN'T dodged almost everyone's questions on here?

You HAVEN'T failed to even give a few explanations as to how creationism works?

Yeah, you haven't....

Here's an example of evolution. There were apes, in latin: Hominini Panina Pan

They evolved into -> Denisova hominin -> Homo antecessor -> Homo cepranensis -> Homo erectus -> Homo ergaster -> Homo floresiensis -> Homo gautengensis -> Homo habilis -> Homo heidelbergensis -> Homo neanderthalensis -> Homo rhodesiensis -> Homo rudolfensis -> Homo sapiens idaltu -> Homo sapiens sapiens (you, me, everybody)

We have found fossils of ALL of the above species.

You could use the pictures of their skeletons to make a little cartoon showing the evolution from ape into man.

Here's my example, where's your's?

[miser]

Evolution by natural selection answers this question by providing the mechanism you are looking for through which complexity originates from simplicity. DNA provides the vehicle through which traits can be passed on, and the environment provides the selective pressures which steer the direction of genetic mutations. An understanding of basic evolutionary theory will give you an answer to your question.

[Jason2]

(Original post by KasanDude)
Right... so you HAVEN'T dodged almost everyone's questions on here?

You HAVEN'T failed to even give a few explanations as to how creationism works?

Yeah, you haven't....

Here's an example of evolution. There were apes, in latin: Hominini Panina Pan

They evolved into -> Denisova hominin -> Homo antecessor -> Homo cepranensis -> Homo erectus -> Homo ergaster -> Homo floresiensis -> Homo gautengensis -> Homo habilis -> Homo heidelbergensis -> Homo neanderthalensis -> Homo rhodesiensis -> Homo rudolfensis -> Homo sapiens idaltu -> Homo sapiens sapiens (you, me, everybody)

We have found fossils of ALL of the above species.

You could use the pictures of their skeletons to make a little cartoon showing the evolution from ape into man.

Here's my example, where's your's?

Show me fossils that account for the transitional period.

And where's your proof that all these fossils are related?

[rmhumphries]

(Original post by Jason2)
Show me fossils that account for the transitional period.

You are saying the same as wanting to see proof that a tree can produce multiple apples by itself by saying you can see it can produce 1 apple, and 2 apples, but you want to see something in-between as well to prove that it is making the apples and not stealing them from other trees...

[Jason2]

(Original post by rmhumphries)
You are saying the same as wanting to see proof that a tree can produce multiple apples by itself by saying you can see it can produce 1 apple, and 2 apples, but you want to see something in-between as well to prove that it is making the apples and not stealing them from other trees...

That makes no sense. There should still be transitionary fossils. The fossils being found are fully-formed, with no sign of gradual change. All this points to a creation.

Also, answer this question: How did it all start? From our experience, life only comes from life. You simply can't explain how basic dead chemicals becoming living molecules. Scientists have tried to replicate this and all attempts have failed.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Jason2)
Show me fossils that account for the transitional period.

And where's your proof that all these fossils are related?

Fossils are very unlikely to develop. It's quite hard to preserve a fossil-it needs to fall in the right sediment in the right conditions, etc. As such, it's overwhelming evidence that we have all of the transitional forms listed above, and multiple copies of each, all with slightly varying characteristics depending on the time period. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Research the genetic evidence for evolution-if you approach it with an open mind you will be fascinated and enlightened.

(Original post by Jason2)
Also, answer this question: How did it all start? From our experience, life only comes from life. You simply can't explain how basic dead chemicals becoming living molecules. Scientists have tried to replicate this and all attempts have failed.

Not within the realm of evolution. We don't know. However, we have many theories as to how the process could have happened. We know amino acids and nucleotides can develop in the conditions we believe to be present in the early stages of the development of life on earth. Lipids are surely present. These are the basic units of cells and there is no stretch of the imagination to consider them forming simple cells, which are very stable.

Once again.

WE DO NOT KNOW =/= GOD DID IT

[Miss Trololol]

We're just flogging a dead horse now :/