Even science believes in creation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why the emphasis on 'random'? Chemical processes in general can hardly be described as 'random'. They follow well defined rules.

[b]Since Spontaneous creation has been disproved AlonG time ago...
As always, the key claim is merely stated without evidence or argument and passed off as fact.
At least tell us:
1. Who proved it.
2. When it was proved.
3. A reference to the proof so we can verify it.[/b]

I gave one link to a reference at the end of my original post.
Here it is again:

http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27

Originally posted by RJHinds
I gave one link to a refernce at the end of my original post.
Here it is again:

http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27

It's just someone's blog/web site.

Originally posted by FMF
It's just someone's blog.

So what? The information is there. 😛

Originally posted by RJHinds
So what? The information is there.

You think a link someone's anonymous blog is a suitable response to twhitehead's request?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So what? The information is there. 😛

The 'information' is wrong.

And the 'so what' is that creditably scientific hypothesis and theories get published and discussed in reputable peer reviewed journals.

somebody's blog, doesn't count.

Originally posted by FMF
You think a link someone's anonymous blog is a suitable response to twhitehead's request?

To tell you the truth, I don't give a rat's ass about his request. If he
really wants the information he can look it up for himself. 😏

Originally posted by FabianFnas
(Still using creationists rhetorics)

But if try is the only thing you can do, as a creationist, then there is not much ground for the creationism to be true, is it? Just try to guess some more, and perhaps you can come nearer to the Truth, by mere chance, but yet.

If you want to reach truth then you have to go outside your little creational box, and ...[text shortened]... f wheight, but just a theory of tryings and guessings.

(Just using creationists rhetorics.)

I don't see any value in arguing with you what two people have said and then you going on about it like a child. Not even science can tell you the origin of live or where the first living cell was created so how can you even suggest using something science that yet can't proof that?

Tell me, what has speed of light to do with creation? Is this some kind of creational straw man to avoid to answer the question?
It was an example, sorry you couldn't see that.

The question is still - Where was the first living cell created? If you don't know the answer, just say so, and accept that the creation isn't a theory of wheight, but just a theory of tryings and guessings.
You are assuming I know the answer in my response but I clearly said before answering "But if Christians can (try) answer it by clues in the Bible". Maybe I had to loose the brackets cause you clearly can not see that either.

Your straw man arguments are just proving that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution11.htm

Where Did the First Living Cell Come From?

In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory
of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on.
Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from
some ...[text shortened]... rst cell.

http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27

Evolution didn't start with the first living Cell.

Evolution starts the moment a self replicating molecule was formed.

Cells came later, and are a product of evolution. (and horizontal gene transfer processes)

And neither evolution nor chemical reactions are random.

Also evolution doesn't say anything about where the first 'life' came from it only talks about how
it developed once it did exist. (that is as you well know the theory of abiogenesis which is separate
and independent from evolution)

Modern bacteria have been evolving for billions of years just like everything else and thus are not a
good model for the first cellular organisms.

Your list of things needed for the first cell is almost certainly wrong, but who says the first life form
had to be cellular? You are making a straw man argument by claiming that the first life was cellular when
that is not the claim of evolution or abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis has most certainly NOT been disproven, in this you are simply lying.

And your conclusion is facile and of course wrong, of course science does not believe in supernatural
creation. You are claiming that your opponents position is something other than what your opponents
say their position is, despite their being no reason or evidence to suppose that this is so.
Even if you don't agree with sciences position, you don't get to declare that science position is something
that it is not in an infantile attempt to support your own position. Which indicates how pathetically weak your
position is.

Reading the first link which you copied some of your text from it is clear you have left out any and all of the
bits that indicate that support evolution and abiogenesis in a blatant and transparent piece of attempted deception
and fraud.
You claim support where you have none through misquoting and distorting others words to suit your ends.
And even without that 'how stuff works' is not a definitive source of information on the subject.

Even so, nothing on there actually supports your position, particularly as your position isn't that god came along
and created the very first life forms and then let evolution turn them into the life we see today over billions of years
(with perhaps the odd little poke and prod from god along the way) but that every single living creature was created
instantly and fully formed in a puff of magic 6000 yrs ago. NOTHING in science or on that website is even remotely in support
of that position.

And finally your second cited link is a creationist blog with all the credibility and substance of wet tissue paper.


And no mater how much you attack evolution you still fail utterly because creationism isn't an alternative.
Creationism isn't, and can never be, science.
A point you spectacularly fail to comprehend or refute.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I gave one link to a reference at the end of my original post.
Here it is again:

http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27

Where exactly on that website is there any proof that spontaneous creation cannot happen. All I see is strong evidence that spontaneous creation of large organisms is not common place. At no point is there proof that it doesn't happen in rare instances, even today, and at no point is there proof that it cannot happen.

Originally posted by RJHinds
To tell you the truth, I don't give a rat's ass about his request. If he
really wants the information he can look it up for himself. 😏

How can I look up something that doesn't exist? It is you that claims such proof exists, you must either admit that you cannot substantiate said claim, or proved references. It is clear however that you don't know what you are talking about anyway, so don't bother.

Originally posted by Nicksten
I can use the same "retorics" to say that science is totally false as some scientists said that nothing is faster than the speed of light until recently they found something faster. They don't agree with each other thus there is no truth in science. You see the fail in this???

Wow do you fail to comprehend how science works.

The recent (potential, it is not confirmed) discovery of what looks like neutrinos travelling faster than light
and the subsequent, and ongoing, investigations into whether this is a real phenomena or an experimental
error, is a beautiful example of how science is meant to work.

First, special relativity says that nothing can be accelerated past the speed of light, it doesn't preclude something
being created that is already travelling faster than light. (This would be postulated as occurring during a particle
collision or decay where one of the created products started with a superluminal velocity.)

This has never been observed (possibly until now) but antimatter was first predicted as possible by theory years
before it was actually discovered.

Second, any and all theories in science are constantly being tested because the purpose of science is to create as
accurate a picture and model of the reality we live in as possible.
Nothing is assumed to be true, and no theory ever graduates to 'truth' but simply gets more and more supported by
evidence and trusted until such a time as evidence is found that contradicts it.
At which point it is discarded or revised to account for the new information.

Third, Science isn't about finding 'truth', it is about searching for truth, but never getting there, or at least never
knowing if you have got there. There is no way of determining if a theory is actually true, or just close enough that no
present experiment probes reality close enough to detect the error.


The classic example of this is Newtonian gravity being replaced with general relativity (GR).

When Newton came up with his theory of gravity (which included his law of universal gravity, theory's include and are made
from laws and facts bound together with an explanatory framework) the tools for measuring the orbits of planets and moons
as they orbited around the sun or their host planet, was very primitive, and not very accurate.
Given the rather large error margins in the known positions and velocities of the orbiting bodies, Newtonian gravity predicted
the future locations of the planets perfectly. In that the planets and moons always turned up inside the predicted zone in
which they were expected to turn up.
Later, when more advanced telescopes and methods were devised, and more observations were made, some of the known
outer planets started not showing up inside the now reduced expected volumes.
The posited explanation for this was that they were being 'perturbed' from their orbits by planets further out.
The locations and existence of these more distant planets duly predicted astronomers went hunting and found these planets.
Exactly as Newtonian gravity predicted.

Then observations got even more precise, and Mercury started turning up outside of its now even smaller predicted volume.
And so a planet even closer in to the sun was postulated to explain it... they even named it... Vulcan.

However this planet doesn't exist, observations confirmed that no planet could be closer to the sun without us being able to see it.

Then along comes Einstein, who looks again at gravity, and comes up with a new theory, GR, this theory was subtly different from
Newtonian gravity and made slightly different predictions for the planets orbits, within the accuracy of available measurement of the
time Newton and Einstein agreed on the locations of the planets for all bar one of them, Mercury.

GR predicts Mercury's orbit to within the accuracy of our measurement, and also accurately predicts the orbits of all kinds of other objects
we have since observed in the universe, as well as accurately predicting the amount of light bending caused by gravity, which Newtonian
gravity gets wrong, but was not possible to measure in Newtons day.

However we still teach and use Newtonian gravity, because Newtonian gravity is arithmetically much much simpler, and for many circumstances
produces a result that is identical to GR to the number of measured decimal places. Which is why the Apollo missions used Newtonian gravity
to calculate their orbits and not GR.

However despite the fact that we have yet to find a single piece of evidence or make any observation that contradicts GR measured to an
incredible number of decimal places, GR is almost certainly wrong.
It is incompatible with Quantum theory of the Standard model, and predicts singularities where it breaks down.

GR is the best theory of gravity we have ever produced and is insanely accurate and nothing contradicts it but it is also almost certainly wrong.

However whatever we replace it with will have to give exactly the same answers for every experiment we have ever done that confirms GR.
In the same way that GR gives exactly the same answer as Newtonian gravity for all the experiments where Newtonian Gravity gave the right answer.


Now getting back to our potential FTL neutrinos, and special relativity.

SR has also been tested to an unbelievably high degree, every time we accelerate particles around a particle accelerator we are testing SR, every time
you check your position with GPS you are testing SR (and GR for that matter), we have done literally trillions upon trillions of experiments that confirm SR.

If this new observation turns out to be real (and that's a really big if) then whatever replaces it would have to explain all those trillions of experiments
where SR does work as well as this new case where it doesn't. (including other observations of neutrino velocities)

Now there are some contenders for a Grand Unified Theory Of Everything (GUT) which hope to replace the Standard model and GR which potentially do
explain this experimental result. In which case this would be the first piece of evidence supporting one (or more ) of these new models over the standard
model and GR. Which would be really exciting for physics, and would allow us to rule in or out some of our possibilities and kick start new physics.

It certainly doesn't prove that science is wrong or unreliable or trustworthy.

Everything we have already confirmed about SR and GR and the standard model will still hold and be reliable.
In the same way that a navel gunner or tank commander doesn't worry about the fact that their trajectory calculations are made using Newtonian gravity,
and not GR, because Newtonian Gravity still works for calculating trajectories, despite having been proved not to be actually true.



Science isn't about finding truth, it's about searching for it.

All scientific theories are mostly right, but they are also all slightly wrong.
We test them constantly to find out where the bits that are wrong are, so we can make them more right and less wrong.
This is how science operates, and after centuries of work, the amount by which we are wrong is really really tiny.
It will never be (or we will never be able to determine it to be) that we can determine a theory to be absolutely true, but we constantly work to get
as close to that as possible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How can I look up something that doesn't exist? It is you that claims such proof exists, you must either admit that you cannot substantiate said claim, or proved references. It is clear however that you don't know what you are talking about anyway, so don't bother.

Thank you. 😏

Originally posted by googlefudge
Evolution didn't start with the first living Cell.

Evolution starts the moment a self replicating molecule was formed.

Cells came later, and are a product of evolution. (and horizontal gene transfer processes)

And neither evolution nor chemical reactions are random.

Also evolution doesn't say anything about where the first 'life' came from it ...[text shortened]... , and can never be, science.
A point you spectacularly fail to comprehend or refute.

Maybe you should read the book on Evolution that Proper Knob
recommended for me. It is called, "WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE"
by Jerry A. Coyne. You can download a pdf copy from the internet.
Maybe you will know something about evolution then. 😏

Originally posted by Nicksten
I don't see any value in arguing with you what two people have said and then you going on about it like a child. Not even science can tell you the origin of live or where the first living cell was created so how can you even suggest using something science that yet can't proof that?

Tell me, what has speed of light to do with creation? Is this some ki e you clearly can not see that either.

Your straw man arguments are just proving that.

I don't see any value in arguing with you what two people have said and then you going on about it like a child.

Haven't you noticed? I'm using the same kind of rhetorics that creationists use. Stupid arguments, going on like broken record, not taking in information, not responding questions posed, and so on. Just good ol' creationists rhetorics.

May I continue?

So you admit that you don't know where the first living cell was created. So creationists don't know much. Okay, I see...

Next question: What plant was the first one created? Was it an oak? A strand of grass? Perhaps a flower of some kind? What was it?

I dare you that you don't know. I can bet that no creationist know the answer. Why? Because creationism is bogus altogether.

(Just using creationists rhetorics.)

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe you should read the book on Evolution that Proper Knob
recommended for me. It is called, "WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE"
by Jerry A. Coyne. You can download a pdf copy from the internet.
Maybe you will know something about evolution then. 😏

Apart from your presumption that I haven't already...
Why would you want me to read more about evolution...
So I can trash your arguments even more effectively?


Also, you patently know nothing about evolution and are proud of it.
You wear your ignorance like a badge of honour.

Maybe you should do like Proper Knob says and read it yourself.