[Ultrashogun]

Originally Posted by freeflow64

okay, you've figured out darwinian evolution, but you kinda forgot chemical evolution
Darwinian evolution- study of process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next
Chemical evolution- the study of how life on Earth may have emerged from non-life (aka abiogenesis)

Chemical evolution works by the same meccanism as what you refer to as "Darwinian evolution". The hypothetical macromolecule that evolves is living.

[Ultrashogun]

Originally Posted by freeflow64

okay, you've figured out darwinian evolution, but you kinda forgot chemical evolution
Darwinian evolution- study of process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next
Chemical evolution- the study of how life on Earth may have emerged from non-life (aka abiogenesis)

Chemical evolution is not the same thing as abiogenesis.

It doesnt even really matter anyway, it still doesnt have anything to do with the origin of the world.

[Lubaolong]

Originally Posted by freeflow64

Yes i do,
CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
here is a link to a page with a list of publications that should be reviewed to your "standards"

I am familiar with this Holy Grail of creationist research. I should have been clearer and asked for a publication in a peer reviewed journal article that wasn't snuck in

[freeflow64]

Originally Posted by Lubaolong

I am familiar with this Holy Grail of creationist research. I should have been clearer and asked for a publication in a peer reviewed journal article that wasn't snuck in

so basically whatever I post you're just going to brush it off as a load of bull or a fluke publication, wow that's open-minded, especially coming from someone involved in the side of an argument that is calling the other side biased and close-minded.

[Lubaolong]

You're a troll, so I'm not going to waste much time on you.

[adren@line]

Originally Posted by freeflow64

so you're saying that just because we believe something that goes against the conventional thinking we must be wrong.
So you're saying that when Copernicus said that the universe was heliocentric instead of geocentric, since he defied common thinking, he must have been wrong?
how is evolution the established view, creationism has been around much longer than evolution, without creationist scientists, Darwin would have had nothing to work with.

Copernicus was fighting against religious nutties like the creationists you look up to.

Creationists are fighting against established science. The former was fighting against myths and fairytales and the latter are fighting against mountains of data and evidence.

The fact is that creationism isnt science, its philosophy or theology. No one can scientifically describe this supposed designer, or give scientific arguments as to why this designer wasnt designed itself.

In-fact, established science negates a designer, due to some key facts:

1. Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
2. All energy is bound by the laws of physics
3. Any "designer" would indeed be made of energy, since everything that exists is either energy or space.
4. All energy in its current manifestation condensed into a singularity some 16 billion years ago. This means that whatever supposed designer exists now, didn't exist at the big bang.
5. There is no such thing as fixed, static masses of energy. All energy transitions from state to state. A designer would be a fixed mass of energy that wouldn't transition from state to state. If it wasnt fixed then it wouldnt be a God, just some invisible dude that will eventually die out, just like the rest of us.
6. All energy exists within a universe, since the universe is everything. If something exists outside of this universe, then it simply exists in another, and hence is bound by its laws. Hence, no "designer" could have designed the universe since it would be in the universe, or a universe.

Until creationists and ID'ers address these points, as well as many others, their "theory" means jack squat.

[freeflow64]

Originally Posted by adren@line

Copernicus was fighting against religious nutties like the creationists you look up to.

Creationists are fighting against established science. The former was fighting against myths and fairytales and the latter are fighting against mountains of data and evidence.

The fact is that creationism isnt science, its philosophy or theology. No one can scientifically describe this supposed designer, or give scientific arguments as to why this designer wasnt designed itself.

In-fact, established science negates a designer, due to some key facts:

1. Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
2. All energy is bound by the laws of physics
3. Any "designer" would indeed be made of energy, since everything that exists is either energy or space.
4. All energy in its current manifestation condensed into a singularity some 16 billion years ago. This means that whatever supposed designer exists now, didn't exist at the big bang.
5. There is no such thing as fixed, static masses of energy. All energy transitions from state to state. A designer would be a fixed mass of energy that wouldn't transition from state to state. If it wasnt fixed then it wouldnt be a God, just some invisible dude that will eventually die out, just like the rest of us.
6. All energy exists within a universe, since the universe is everything. If something exists outside of this universe, then it simply exists in another, and hence is bound by its laws. Hence, no "designer" could have designed the universe since it would be in the universe, or a universe.

Until creationists and ID'ers address these points, as well as many others, their "theory" means jack squat.

Copernicus was religious Einstein, he was fighting the "established science" of the day. When it comes to the creation/formation of the world, evolution also loses its scientific value and becomes philosophy, as science is the study of observable facts, not randomly conjugated ideas. Where are your mountains of data and evidence, you haven't shown any, just told me how stupid and biased I am.
1. agree
2. agree
3. not if it is supernatural, but that's not the point in this arguement
4. where did the energy come from? you also forgot the matter, but where did that come from?
5. again supernatural, not relevant
6. (a) how do you know the universe is everything, prove it, (b) designer would be supernatural, not relevant.

[freeflow64]

repost