Evolution: Fact or Fiction? - Audio Book Introduction.wmv

[jadagod]

evolution has been put on trail and it kicked creationism out of schools, The End

[warren52nz]

The paper that claims Scientists' dissent from Darwin was debunked ages ago:

watch?v=YsiWf-ctieA&feature=re­c-HM-fresh+div

Real Scientists know that Evolution is correct!

[bestvalue]

@warren52nz "Real Scientists know that Evolution is correct!"

A textbook example of the "no-true-Scotsman" logical fallacy. Thanks. :^D

[PirateXzibit]

The word "Dinosaur" wasn't invented until the 19th century. That word isn't in the Bible for an obvious reason. They were regarded as any other animal, why would they write every animal that lived with them? They were farmers, and food was prioritized over wasting time writing down the name and description of every one.

[bestvalue]

@PirateXzibit You're exactly right, PXZ. I believe that behemoth, dragon and leviathan which ARE mentioned in the Bible refer to dinosaurs.

[PirateXzibit]

@bestvalue Look up Kent Hovinds "Dinosaurs and the Bible". It's really really good. I have it favourited on my channel.

[bestvalue]

@PirateXzibit Thanks, PXZ. I think I have seen all of Kent Hovind's stuff multiple time and it IS very good. As I am checking out other resources, I'm finding a few things I disagree with him on and places where he is mistaken but I still love his stuff. :^D

[ScienceFictionHairdo]

Ow fuck off. You bible people are so fucking transparant it's laughable! ''this is not a book about science against religion, Christianity has no quarrel with science.'' Scientific discoveries compatible with the bible..!? Yeah the world is flat again and dinosaurs never existed. Have you even READ the bible? It's like saying Harry Potter is compatible with science. Give me a break...

[bestvalue]

@ScienceFictionHairdo Excuse me but first off, my book has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with science. Second, the Bible said the earth is round centuries before science figured it out. It does not claim the earth is flat. Third, there are dinosaurs in the Bible. It does not say dinosaurs never existed.

But forget to the Bible. Let's stick to the scientific evidence and I will destroy your arguments.

[bestvalue]

@ScienceFictionHairdo And please have some respect and don't use profanity or ad hominem attacks on this page or you will be blocked. Thank you.

[sulljoh1]

The layering of the fossils caused by a great flood? Pseudo-genes put into our DNA that do nothing but look like superannuated versions of monkey genes, or even reptile genes? Starlight created on route to the earth? (If you are the young-earth type) These explanations just cannot be believed by a thinking person. If you want to believe in the independent creation of each "kind," then do it because of faith. By pitting evolution against Christianity, you are condemning Christianity.

[newfagscanttrif0rce]

@sulljoh1

Christianity is already condemned to the myth pile anyway.

[deepashtray]

Whatever helps you sleep at night..

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Back atcha, buddy! ;^D

[deepashtray]

Final posting.

Randy, you are far too disingenuous to be the skeptic you claim. If you were, you would have rejected the evidence for a young Earth and global flood a long time ago. Clearly you are a Christian apologetic who believes that undermining the theory of evolution will somehow increase the influence of the bible on American society. At least I'm honest about being an atheist.

Good luck with your future aspirations. It's been fun.

Peace.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray "you are far too disingenuous to be the skeptic you claim"

Please elaborate.

"you would have rejected the evidence for a young Earth and global flood"

What evidence have you looked at and rejected? I've offered twice to send you a list of 101 evidences but you did not take me up on them.

"Clearly you are a Christian apologetic" I think you meant apologist. And yes, I am NOW because of the scientific evidence as you are an atheist because you believe the evidence supports it.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray "who believes that undermining the theory of evolution will somehow increase the influence of the bible on American society" Not true. I am interested in people being exposed to both sides of the argument whether or not they continue to believe in evolution. I am for fairness in all issues.

"At least I'm honest about being an atheist." How so? And how am I being dishonest? Are you still convinced that no valid evidence against evolution and for God exists? What have you looked at?

[deepashtray]

Hi Randy, me again. I have a serious question for you. How old do you believe the earth is?

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray I believe there is good scientific evidence that it is young but once again, like everything, I remain open. My disbelief in evolution in no way hinges on my belief in the age of the earth. But of course if it IS young, evolution is out of the question.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue Thank you for your reply.

Time is the key. It's the one subject that ties everything else together.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Very true. But the mechanisms of random, genetic mutation and natural selection must be capable of producing new information and many scientists (even evolutionists) say they are not. There is definitely plenty of evidence for natural selection. That is not in question. But it's abilities are limited. I will change my mind if a new mechanism is discovered but for now the jury is still out.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue I get a very strong impression that you really do not understand evolution. I may be wrong, but it sounds like all of your information is coming from books and lectures.

I would be interested in your opinion on a documentary series I have on my favorites list, on my channel, called BBC-The Secret Life of Chaos (which I got from thesecretlifeofchaos channel). It 's an hour long and may be an eye opener for you.

Peace.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray I believe I understand it very well along with the processes and mechanisms that are claimed to cause it. While I admit that there is more I could learn (who couldn't say that about any subject?) I have heard the best arguments and evidence for evolution as well as their refutations which I find more credible.

I'm a skeptic by nature and I will definitely watch the documentary you mentioned and let you know my opinion. I am perfectly willing to admit if I am wrong.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue I'm not talking about arguments, but about actually studying the results. Evolution is not isolated to the individual or even the species. There are many millions of factors all acting and reacting together, from the molecular level to the global level. You can learn everything there is to know about the internal combustion engine, it won't teach you how to drive. And no, I'm not an expert myself as I haven't worked in the field for 15 years now. I'll add more later. Me tired.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Just curious, deep. What gives you "the very strong impression" that I don't understand evolution? Is it just so obviously true to you that you find it difficult to believe anyone could not accept it? (That's almost the way I feel about the existence of God.) What evidence convinced you that it was true? Have you taken an honest look at both sides?

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue "Is it just so obviously true to you that you find it difficult to believe anyone could not accept it? (That's almost the way I feel about the existence of God.) What evidence convinced you that it was true?" Big question here. I'll get back to you on it. Until then, if you have time please watch 2 videos that articulate my own experience as an atheist. "Transition to Atheism" and "Atheism in Congruence", by TheraminTrees. Not exact, but close to my own experience.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray I'll definitely check them out when I get time. Personally, I wish I could spend all evening watch this stuff but I promised my wife we would spend time together.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue I also have a question for you, which no one else from your position has yet to answer (and I've asked). Why do people who take a conservative view of their religion demand that it's either everything or nothing? The impression I get is that if one thing causes them to question anything from the bible, their whole world view will crumble apart and God will no longer exist for them? Their belief in the bible is absolute. This is not intended as a criticism.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Great question. No one else has answered it? I accept that as a challenge. I suspect there are many facets to what you mean when you say "it's either everything or nothing." With regard to Bible literalism, I always say I take what is meant to be taken literally, literally, and what is meant to be taken figuratively, figuratively. (continued)

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray For example, if I told you I was walking down the street yesterday and it started raining cats and dogs, you would understand that I was literally waking down the street and it started raining really hard. The Bible contains songs, poetry, allegory, parables and history and ways to tell the difference.

There are some people (theists may be the worst) who blindly believe what they're taught & won't question or challenge their beliefs. (I find Catholics to be bad for this.) (cont.)

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray And probably they believe that yes, if what they've been taught is not completely true their whole worldview will crumble apart and God will no longer exist for them. They don't realize that it is just perhaps their conception of God that does not exist. For example, as I've been discussing elsewhere, I am willing to entertain the idea that God is not omniscient though that is what I always believed. (cont.)

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray I think one thing that is really helpful with this whole God/atheism debate is it is forcing theists to examine and refine their views. And I agree that too many theists have blind faith. But I find just as many atheists have blind faith in what they read from Dawkins, Hitchens and so forth. We all need to not be afraid to look at the evidence on both sides. Interestingly, many atheists who have done so have become theists.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray So to sum all this up, the reason I would say most people don't want to challenge their views is fear. They are complacent and comfortable with their lives and they are afraid that if they find out some of their long-held beliefs are incorrect they might have to change some things about the way they live. I personally love to challenge my views and subject them to the scientific method. If they come up short, I am willing to modify them. In fact, I've been doing that a lot lately.

[bestvalue]

@bestvalue I realize I rambled there a bit so did I answer your question? Perhaps if I word your question this way: are you asking why can't people give up their interpretation of the Bible without feeling they have to give up belief in God? I'm not sure I know anyone who feels that way. The New Age movement has conception of God that doesn't take the Bible literally and still believes in God. Many people are converting to that. To me it's a form of pantheism, though, and not a personal god.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Okay, I just downloaded it and will watch as soon as possible. Looks good, thanks. Feel free to send me any info you have that you think might help.

Will you watch something for me? Search "Experiments in Stratification" on YouTube. It shows peer-reviewed experiments that have serious ramifications for the geologic column. It's only about 30 minutes.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue Hi again.

I'll probably watch the video you recommend tonight.

If there's anything I post here that you think may sway someone from purchasing your audio-book, go ahead and delete it. I don't want to cut into your livelihood, and bruising my ego isn't an issue. Maybe consider this conversation as a way to hone your edge on the subject.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray "If there's anything I post here that you think may sway someone from purchasing your audio-book, go ahead and delete it."

That's very kind of you to say, deep, but that won't be necessary. And I really don't care about selling books. I know that sounds hard to believe. I just think this subject is important because the moral (and eternal) implications. I would talk about it all day, every day, for free.

I certainly feel there is much I can learn from you and other non-theists.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray I am always looking for opportunities to "hone my edge." But I also constantly attempt to falsify my views. I am completely willing to change my opinions on any subject (even the existence of God) if I am presented with enough evidence.

By the way - I have a list of 101 evidences of an earth too young for evolution to have happened. If you're interested I could upload it to MediaFire. But, again, my non-belief in evolution is entirely independent of that.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue 1/2 Re:The video "Experiments in Stratification". This has some huge holes in it. First and foremost, it assumes the entire geologic column is the result of hydrological deposition. It makes absolutely no allowances for aolian deposition or volcanic activity. It completely avoids any other ways to test age. And it does nothing to explain concretion or inclusions. And I'm not even a geologist. Ice age? Great Barrier Reef? Lake Baikal? Rift Valley? Polar ice caps?

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue 2/2 Re: "Experiments in Stratification". Also is the very simply the fact that limestone doesn't settle out the same as other materials. It can, but it can also precipitate out, which is a different process than settling.

The author doesn't say how this evidence applies to the age of the earth, but only questions the other methods, and his tests are far from conclusive. No doubt his work is invaluable to the study of sediment deposits, but the rest is a stretch.

Thanks.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Okay, I've watched the first 2 parts. Tragic what happened to Turing. So far it feels as if they are confusing patterns with codes. Here's something I wrote in my book. It'll take several windows to post it:

Patterns vs. Codes

How DNA Provides Evidence of Intelligent Design

Creationists assert that the universe must have been created by an Intelligent Designer and that God must exist because the world is complex and orderly.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray

“Besides,” they say, “we don’t see order coming from chaos in nature.” Evolutionists correctly counter that, in fact, we DO see order arising from chaos. Then, they proceed to point to examples of patterns; patterns such as sand dunes in the desert. Those undulating ripples across the Sahara are proof that nature can make patterns without an Intelligent Designer.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray

Don’t miss my point. Of course, the destructive force of a tornado causes chaos for anything that gets in its path. But the tornado itself – the funnel cloud – does not require a designer to create it.

But a code is very different. It is, in effect, a pattern with a message. All languages are codes. Take, for example, the word “ball” in English.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray

If you were to write down “ball” and show it to someone from China who didn’t understand English, it would appear to them merely as scratches of ink on a piece of paper. The meaning of the word would be lost on them just as their language would be meaningless to you if you couldn’t read Chinese.

So, in this way, all languages, when reduced to their simplest form, are just scratches of ink on a piece of paper.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray

The only reason the words have meaning is because a mind has encoded a message within the combination of symbols.

Continuing with our example of the word “ball,” we have taken the plosive sound made by the letter “b” and given it a representative symbol. We then did the same thing with 25 other sounds and called them letters of the English alphabet.

Those letters, when arranged in different patterns, make words.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray

And on those words, we impose an idea or a concept - in this case, the concept of a small rubber, leather or plastic sphere used for playing a variety of games. The symbols (letters) contain a larger meaning beyond their physical representation.

In essence, a pattern differs from a code in that it doesn’t represent anything other than what it is in its simplest form. A sand dune is just sand. A snowflake is just water molecules.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray

And a tornado is just wind, water and air pressure.

A code, on the other hand, is composed of a pattern with an inherent message imposed upon it. Thus, a pattern is composed, a code is imposed. A code always requires a mind to impose the message – a code creator or designer.

Now, here is the 64 thousand dollar question. Is DNA a pattern or a code? (If you need a hint, it’s called the genetic CODE.)

Scientists acknowledge that DNA is a code.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray

Reduced to its basic form, DNA is just molecules and proteins. But when arranged in various patterns, those molecules and proteins form a language – instructions that tell your body how to look, act and feel.

Like letters of the English alphabet that make up words which represent ideas, DNA molecules make up strands which represent messages – information for the human body. DNA is a language. DNA is a code.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray

And because we have established that all codes demand the existence of a code creator, we can justifiably conclude that DNA, the most complex code in the universe, must have been created by a mind – an Intelligent Designer.

If you don’t agree, try answering this question:

Can you name one language in history that was NOT created by a mind?

For much more on this subject, including free MP3s and other downloads, please go to:

cosmic finger prints .com /if you can read this. htm

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue My hats off to you (keep this one for future arguments, but not with me). Good reply, but wrong. DNA self replication is purely mechanical. What you have illustrated here is exactly what's mentioned in an earlier post regarding the misguided use of the word code. It is only descriptive -- unless you believe it is from a designer, which by the way Francis Collins (a staunch evolutionist and anti-young earther) does. Biologos.com would be a good place to explore this further.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Oops! I think one of the sections of my "patterns vs. codes" thing got out of order. I should have numbered them. Hopefully you can figure it out.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue 1/2 I wish to ask you another question. Consider that geology is the science with by far the most powerful influence on the global economy and most studied, (earthquakes, mining and minerals, oil and gas, hydrology, construction) which affects every single country on earth. Why is it that no one out side of those who advocate a literal interpretation of the bible ever find evidence for an earth only 6000yrs old? S. Korea, Japan, India, China all have very advanced geo. institutions.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Good question. I'm not sure that I could give a good answer. I could suggest that it might not be that they don't find evidence of a young earth but that evolutionary presuppositions force them to interpret the evidence with biased eyes. Like when paleontologists found dinosaur blood and soft tissue they never questioned the geologic column but made excuses about the rate of fossilization. That goes on all the time. But I'll consider what you said.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue Have you read the research paper by Mary H. Schweitzer for your self? Creationists make it sound like she found a bloody chuck roast. The truth is far from it. She certainly didn't find blood. Do you know why she found the soft tissue? It's very simple; no one has thought of looking for it. And consider this, if a T-Rex walked thru your backyard the only thing it would prove is that they are still around; google coelacanth. Be a skeptic and read it yourself, again if you need to.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Trust me, I know all about the coelacanth. Thanks for bringing that up. That's another good example of what I'm talking about. They find one alive but they still use it as an index fossil for 325-410 million-year old rock. It could have been found in any rock layer if it's still alive.

And you just did it too."If a T-Rex walked thru your backyard the only thing it would prove is that they are still around." Nice elastic evolutionary theory - stretched to fit any evidence.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray So what would falsify evolution then? And don't say rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian because if I told you I predicted they would find soft dinosaur tissue you would have said no way. Schweitzer tells a story of a colleague (a superior) who said what she was claiming was IMPOSSIBLE. She asked him what would convince him and he said, "NOTHING!" and hung up the phone on her.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue  What would falsify it? Proof the earth is only 6000 years old. I fail to see how my T-Rex analogy would disprove evolution. Maybe it's just me. The evidence that the earth is very old, much older than 6000yrs. is overwhelming with literally thousands of examples for an old earth...including my back yard (no T-Rex's though).

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Whoa! Remember science doesn't deal with PROOF. But I offered to send you list of 101 evidences that the earth is not as old as some claim. (I'm sure there's many you could discredit, but all 101?)

The thousands of examples you claim for an old earth are likely less than 10 radiometric dating methods repeated over and over again, Mine are 101 separate dating methods that have fewer built-in assumptions. Care to take a look at them with an open mind?

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue So you do not feel that there was an ice age? There's a rock too big to fit in my garage about 2 blks from my house. It is a smooth and rounded piece of granite. My neighborhood is relatively flat, and so is most of the state where I live. Why isn't this extremely large dense rock underneath the 400 feet of sandstone under my house? The nearest surface granite is about 120 miles north. Could a glacier have moved it? No radiometric dating here.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Of course there was an ice age. (Just one.) The global flood is a perfect mechanism to explain the ice age (which the current theory can't explain.) Some scientists are working out the logistics of the ice age taking place after the flood and lasting less than 1000 years. It doesn't have to take centuries.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue Last posting tonight. Did you know that the living reef structure of the Great Barrier Reef has been growing for the last 20,000 yrs? It turns out that coral reefs grow much the same way trees do, by growing in yearly successive layers. This didn't require any radiometric dating, they just needed to drill a hole. There's a mushroom in Washington state that's 10 miles across! It's a very common species for the area. To get to be 10 miles in diameter it would have to be 10,000yrs old!

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray I've read that the Great Barrier Reef is only 4,000 years old - consistent with a flood 4,400 years ago. Notice that the examples you are giving are thousands - not millions or billions. Also more consistent with my view.

Are you aware of the inadvertent findings of Willard Libby (inventor of carbon dating) that indicate the earth is less than 10,000 years old? I'll explain if necessary.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue Last thought. Getting back to the Great Barrier Reef, all the evidence indicates that it's been where it is for the last 600,000 years, and as I said earlier the current structure's been growing for the last 20,000yrs.

It's dying. Our grandchildren may never see it.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue 1/2 A problem with your examples of T-Rex meat, coelocanths or evidence of a global flood is that even if true, these do not disprove evolution. Proving the existence of God doesn't either. A mistake creationists make is that there's the theory of evolution (noun) and then there is evolution (verb). The theory of evolution is a working model and constantly being updated as new information is found. Evolution is happening. Change happens. This is what I mean when I say time is the key.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue 2/2 Creationists cannot accept that everything is constantly in flux. You know the old Buddhist saying? You can never see the same river form one moment to the next, though it's the same river it's always new. This is true of life; the individual, species, ecosystem, biome, planet. My interest is in conservation, which many evangelists preach is nature worship and evil. Their concern is not for this world but the next. I prefer to live in this world, the next will take care of itself.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray I certainly CAN accept that "everything is constantly in flux." I just see evidence that it changes within limits.

Yes, we should take care of nature. But we should worship the CreaTOR not the creaTION.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray I'll admit that I have my own presuppositions, one of them being that the majority are often wrong. This may have come from the fact that my dad wrote an unpublished book about the Kennedy assassination exposing the cover up of the U.S. Government killing their own president back when no one believed it. Now pretty much everyone accepts that Oswald didn't act alone. I predict the same will be true for the 9/11 attacks within 30 years. (Evolution may take a bit longer.) :^)

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue You realize that globally the evolutionary view is in the minority? Thank you for your support, a representative will contact shortly for your donation; )

The countries and cultures I'm talking about have no stake in the creationist/evolutionist debate, and it's likely most people are even unaware if it. Remember this about conspiracies: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity... to paraphrase Napoleon.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray I like that quote. I'll have to remember it. Yes, I don't believe that most of the scientists who believe in evolution do so for any malicious reasons (though some do).

There's another quote I like. I don't know who said it but I think I used it on TV. "Most intelligent people believe in evolution because they've been told that most intelligent people believe in evolution." I used to be one of them.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Do you have any presuppositions you'd like to share? Everybody has them. I think the experience with my dad taught me to be skeptical of the claims made by the establishment and the mainstream media. I don't trust much of what I read in the papers. I am also a freelance journalist and know how stories can be skewed.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue 1/2 Here's a presupposition: I'm guessing you have a voice in your head saying that God and the biblical account of creation are the truth. That is your reality. I have the presupposition that the earth is very old. I loved dinosaurs and cavemen as a kid, and I loved to spend lots of time hanging around in museums. I was heavily exposed to religion, but never seriously examined it. As an adult I was startled to learn that people took the old testament literally.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray "I'm guessing you have a voice in your head saying that God and the biblical account of creation are the truth"

No, I don't really have a voice in my head saying those things - unless you mean that because I've been persuaded by the evidence, my inner voice tells me this is true. But it was not always that way.

"I have the presupposition that the earth is very old"

I had that one too (and would gladly believe it again). My beliefs came from studying science, not religion.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue 2/2 I've always had a fascination with animal behavior.This sparked an interest in diversity and conservation. Evolution is something I never really had reason to examine until I became serious about biology at the age of 24. I've taken 8 or 9 successively advancing college level biology classes, 2 of those specifically on evolution. The one thing I did learn about evolution is that it isn't simple. In fact it is very messy. It does explain to me the world I see around us.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Most scientists have the presupposition that naturalism is true whereas I am not constrained by that limitation. I am free to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

As well, they believe that science is the only way to gain knowledge and know truth. But that philosophy is false because it is self-refuting. It doesn't live up to its own claims. You can't use science to prove that science is the only way to discover truth. Like me saying, "I don't speak a word of English." :^D

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue For me, I feel philosophy is very important and has a role to play in understanding human existence. I didn't give philosophy serious consideration until I was an adult. Until recently I didn't consider myself an atheist. In a way I still don't because it's just another label that leads to presuppositions. I like to think that I see the world in shades of gray, not the stark black and white which human nature is prone to.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray "I like to think that I see the world in shades of gray, not the stark black and white which human nature is prone to."

That, in itself, is a philosophy. You believe that it is best to look at the world in shades of gray. So your philosophy will color your perceptions. You won't accept any absolutes. But is it TRUE that it's best to look at the world in shades of gray or is that okay for you but different for me? Relativism is self-refuting.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue 2/2 Those are countries not influenced by the Abrahamic religions. Given the role oil, gas and metal play in our economy, and given the need to understand such things as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis, you would think that somewhere someone not influenced by an Abrahamic belief system would argue for a young earth. Particularly since the geologic processes involved are solidly dependent on time and involves trillions of $ in economic activity. This would be important. Thanks.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue Thanks for your patience.

Why do I get the impression...? You write, "mechanisms of random, genetic mutation and natural selection must be capable of producing new information,". No, "new information" is not being produced. Never has been. You know that DNA is A+T and C+G. This is it. Every single form of known life uses this mechanism. The DNA in a microbe from the Precambrian is the exact same as the DNA in you, me and all life on Earth. It's just been rearranged.

More later.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Yes, and all the books in the library are made up of the same 26 letters. Does that prove they had a common ancestor or does it prove that is the code to write information in English? DNA is a language. It has grammar, syntax etc. You can't derive the meaning of the book by studying the chemical composition of the paper and ink. And the information in the genetic code transcends the ATCG of the genetic code.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue No, DNA is not a code or a language. These are artificial human constructs. Like "information", the word "code" is only a descriptor and has absolutely nothing to do with the function of the DNA molecule. This is one of those fundamental fallacies that creationists can't seem to grasp. Words like "code" and "information" are take as literal, only serve to muddle the issue and are used to imply that the "code" is a deliberate creation.

[bestvalue]

@deepashtray Forgive me for saying so but I'll take Francis Collins' (head of the Human Genome Project) word on this over yours.

[deepashtray]

@bestvalue Yes, Collins is smarter than me. But until further investigation, I stand by my statement. Here's why: Using the words "code" or "information" can only be an analogy. That DNA appears to use a type of grammar, syntax, etc. is an anthropocentric interpretation. Information from the letters in books written in English are only available to someone who reads English. Without a trained human brain to interpret it, letters are only lines of ink on paper... except DNA is a molecule.

[bestvalue]

@bestvalue

And a snowflake, when examined under a microscope will reveal an intricate design composed of nothing more than water molecules. Every one unique. And every one created with the appearance of design yet formed entirely by nature.

Even a tornado, merely a swirling column of wind and water and air pressure, creates a powerful and deadly pattern by random chance with no evidence of design. Is this not order coming from chaos?

[Desertphile]

That's all Creationists have left: lying and deceiving about what evolution is and about what evolutionary theory says. Dude, see Job 13:4-11 for what god thinks about this video.

[bestvalue]

@Desertphile Please tell me where, in this Introduction, I have lied or been deceptive "about what evolution is and about what evolutionary theory says." Be very specific. Refrain from making accusations if you cannot back them up with evidence. I assure you that I have evidence for every claim I make. We may disagree about the nature of the evidence but it is evidence nonetheless. And I will use - science - not the Bible to support my points.

[thespurginator]

i found it interesting that it says "this is not about evolution vs religion" then it goes directly into saying how evolution and christianity in particular are incompatible. the bias behind this writing is really quite plain to see. it would be more effective it were actually about refuting evolution rather than promoting a theology.

[bestvalue]

@thespurginator Thanks for your comment. The book actually deals very little with theology - Christianity or otherwise. But I know my audience and, for the most part, it will be Christians who will read this.

[thespurginator]

@bestvalue preaching to the choir, eh?

[bestvalue]

@thespurginator Yup. Just like Dawkins. Darwinists won't read the book because they don't want to follow the evidence where it leads. But back to the main point - the book is about science, not religion.

[thespurginator]

@bestvalue that's a funny word, "darwinist". i believe in gravity, does that make me a "newtonist"? and how about molecular theory? am i an "einsteinist"?

.

but really though, for a book about science, it talks a lot about religion. of course, this could be that it's just the introduction.

[bestvalue]

@thespurginator Yeah, it's because it's just the introduction. (There IS a section about the "religion" of science and evolution, though.) Your rhetoric about Newton and Einstein tells me that you believe evolution is a fact which is the very myth the book attempts to refute. Natural selection and microevolution are a fact, yes, but macroevolution and common ancestry, not so much.

[thespurginator]

@bestvalue if you don't mind me asking,(in your opinion) what's the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

[bestvalue]

@thespurginator From TalkOrigins: "Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth."

[bestvalue]

@thespurginator “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

- Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883. referring to a four-day symposium held in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History.