Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[olavisjo]

.

You've got that exactly wrong. And I don't understand how you could be so far off.
Darwin is saying that every case he looked at was "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." And that is the case. The DNA discovery by Watson, Crick, et al. provided the mechanism for these 'numerous, successive, slight modifications.'

That is what you say, but I don't see it, and until such time that you demonstrate this to be true, I will have to consider this as an unsupported claim on your part.

You can add gravity to your list of my 'unsupported claims.'
[But I suppose gravity provides it's own 'support' ]

DNA, the Language of Evolution: Francis Crick & James Watson

DNA may be the most famous molecule in the world today, but it came to the attention of scientists rather late in the history of biology. Gregor Mendel found some of the underlying regularities of heredity almost a century before DNA was discovered. At the turn of the century scientists discovered similar principles then rediscovered Mendel's work and rapidly realized that life was somehow encoded in genes. Just what those genes were made of was a mystery, but that did not prevent scientists from starting to work out the dynamics of genes and mutations, and how new forms of life could result from natural selection. The Modern Synthesis of evolution, the foundation on which most research on evolution has rested for the past 50 years, was already set in place years before DNA was discovered.
....
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_22

I don't know if this was intended to be support for your claim or not. But at best all you have is another vague claim, which does not count as evidence.

So, can you support your claim?

Darwin is saying that every case he looked at was "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." And that is the case.

[zeromeansnothing]

re olavisjo

olavisjo, . Is the current discussion regarding advanced science matters on this thread, based on solid premise or is it sci-fi. Is it something between these two polarities. I will respect your advice here. Is medicine critical here, olavisjo

[olavisjo]

.

olavisjo, . Is the current discussion regarding advanced science matters on this thread, based on solid premise or is it sci-fi. Is it something between these two polarities. I will respect your advice here. Is medicine critical here, olavisjo

I should hope that it were based on solid premises, but todays sci-fi is tomorrows science facts.

[olavisjo]

.

It's difficult to have an intelligent conversation like this. Did you also argue that microwave ovens, cell phones, and Wi-fi were fictional magic when they first came out?

I did require evidence before I believed in those things as well. By nature, I am very skeptical as you may have noticed.

First, you switched goal posts. I began by stating that quantum computing will eventually solve complex problems. You've now moved the goal post to quantum computing solving problems right now.

Second, in doing so, you also impose a false dichotomy, ie., either quantum computing solves problems right now, or it's entirely fictional. Quantum processors are only now becoming commercially available and are still rather experimental. Further development is needed before we see it in wide-scale use solving the kinds of problems we were discussing earlier.

Third, you posted some code that's irrelevant to quantum computing. Humans program in what we call "high-level" languages, such as Java and C#. Machine code, the 0s and 1s, are the lowest level, which must be compiled from the high-level. Quantum computing introduces a third option in a qubit by allowing a superposition of both states. Instead of just the binary state, there's 0, 1, and both. So the answer to your question, we would still use the same high-level programming languages in principle (with some minor changes in some cases), but the compiler and processor will be much different.

If you say that Quantum computers will exist and they will solve problems, then I will say that I will believe it when I see it.
But if you say that Quantum computers do exist and they will solve problems, then I will say Quantum computers do exist and they do not solve problems, therefore my skepticism is justified.
And why is my code irrelevant to quantum computing? It is a problem that conventional computers can't solve in realistic time frames, it is exactly the type of problem that Quantum computers are intended to solve.

Fourth, I posted a link to a company that is already making quantum processors. You are arguing from a position of personal incredulity. You don't know anything about it, you don't want to, and even if you did, it's too complex for you to understand, therefore it must be wrong. That's terrible logic!

I do prefer that to "it's too complex for you to understand, therefore it must be right".

If you don't see it, maybe I can explain.

This is Darwin's quote that you posted: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."

In the first sentence, starting with "If it could be demonstrated...," he's saying, if it could be shown that organs could NOT have been formed by evolution, his theory would break down. Second sentence, he's saying he can find no such case of any organ which could NOT, which implies that his theory does NOT break down. Evolution is numerous successive, slight modifications. So Darwin's basically saying, his theory of evolution by natural selection withstands this particular test, because there are no cases he can find of an organ with irreducible complexity. Every organ can be explained by numerous successive, slight modifications. This remains true to this day.

False, this all changed when it was discovered that heredity was passed by digital information. A whole zoo of things that can't evolve by "numerous, successive, slight modifications" was introduced.

[olavisjo]

.

It's not reasonable to require complete virtual replication of evolutionary processes to accept the Theory (in fact it is by definition impossible for humans to produce natural selection). It only requires real world observation, with testable predictions. And we have that in droves.

You are claiming for evidence the very thing that is being disputed. This is called begging the question.

[olavisjo]

.

Well, apparently, programmers have been writing digital code for the past 50 years that does evolve successfully. Today, evolving digital code is the very basis of artificial intelligence. If programmers 50 years ago could write what must have been very simple code that evolved then how much more able to evolve is DNA with it's vastly more complex code?

That is exactly what I am talking about, digital code can and does evolve under the careful hand of intelligent design. No blind watchmakers needed.

[Peter]

.

Well, apparently, programmers have been writing digital code for the past 50 years that does evolve successfully. Today, evolving digital code is the very basis of artificial intelligence. If programmers 50 years ago could write what must have been very simple code that evolved then how much more able to evolve is DNA with it's vastly more complex code?

That is exactly what I am talking about, digital code can and does evolve under the careful hand of intelligent design. No blind watchmakers needed.

The erroneous assertion was that digital code (DNA) actually disproves evolution because digital code cannot change without breaking the program. Who authored the digital code or even if it required an author is a different debate entirely.

[Sir Hamilton]

Wow, talk about taking my posts out of context....that was cute danmark. I was only using the popularity thing because star was using the popularity thing.

You still don't understand the difference between appealing to popularity of non-experts in a general population, and that of appealing to scientific consensus and expertise? Wow. I really don't know what else to say to you at this point.

And you still don't seem to understand that these so called "experts" are nothing more than imperfect biased humans. Humans that you just blindly believe everything that they teach because you like it. And around and around we keep going

I understand experts are only human. What's your point?

If you had a bad tooth ache, would you avoid going to your dentist just because he's an imperfect human, and instead opt for just anybody?

"You should let Aunt Martha do your root canal... our dentist is just a person!"

- If my car broke, I'd get a mechanic to fix it, not a seamstress
- If I needed surgery, I'd have it done by a surgeon, not a pharmacist
- If I need medicine, I'll visit my doctor, not my hair stylist
- If someone is mentally ill, I'll recommend they see a psychiatrist, not a priest
- If my cat is sick, I'll take her to a veterinarian, not a mechanic
- If you want biometric facial recognition software, you ask someone like me, not a veterinarian
- If we want to know the scientific consensus on evolution, we'd look to biologists, not garbage men

It's complete and utter nonsense to suggest experts in their respected fields are no different than anyone else just because they're human. There's also the science itself, which is published for peer-review in a public and democratic process, something you continually dismiss. Experiments must be repeatable. Evidence and methodologies must withstand scrutiny. Hypotheses must be tested. They don't just dictate what the facts are.

You know very little about science. You are out of your depth here. You can't effectively criticize that which you can't understand.

I agree it is complete and utter nonsense to suggest experts in their respected fields are no different than anyone else. That is exactly what YOU did. I have given you a list of many scientists that believed in a young earth and you just dismissed them because it contradicted your ideal of science. I find that rather arrogant and ignorant of you to do. Then you appealed to the popularity consensus....as if popularity is the key to scientific facts. I believe you are the one who understands very little about science.

[Danmark]

.

You've got that exactly wrong. And I don't understand how you could be so far off.
Darwin is saying that every case he looked at was "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." And that is the case. The DNA discovery by Watson, Crick, et al. provided the mechanism for these 'numerous, successive, slight modifications.'

That is what you say, but I don't see it, and until such time that you demonstrate this to be true, I will have to consider this as an unsupported claim on your part.

You can add gravity to your list of my 'unsupported claims.'
[But I suppose gravity provides it's own 'support' ]

DNA, the Language of Evolution: Francis Crick & James Watson

DNA may be the most famous molecule in the world today, but it came to the attention of scientists rather late in the history of biology. Gregor Mendel found some of the underlying regularities of heredity almost a century before DNA was discovered. At the turn of the century scientists discovered similar principles then rediscovered Mendel's work and rapidly realized that life was somehow encoded in genes. Just what those genes were made of was a mystery, but that did not prevent scientists from starting to work out the dynamics of genes and mutations, and how new forms of life could result from natural selection. The Modern Synthesis of evolution, the foundation on which most research on evolution has rested for the past 50 years, was already set in place years before DNA was discovered.
....
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_22

I don't know if this was intended to be support for your claim or not. But at best all you have is another vague claim, which does not count as evidence.

So, can you support your claim?

You have been given ample evidence to support the claim of evolution and that creationism (ID) is not even science.
But there is more. In the law we have a principle called res judicata. It means the thing has already been decided. In Dover vs Kitzmiller the issue you claim there's no proof of was decided:
A portion of the decision in that case:
ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

The case is closed. It is over. You lose. No matter how many slogans from non scientific creationist blogs you continue to cite, no matter how many times you say, 'prove it,' Game Over.

BTW, the judge, a Christian, found key witnesses for 'ID' perjured themselves repeatedly.

[Sir Hamilton]

are you aware that these young earth scientists have earned their degrees from accredited universities? You put alot of faith in these accredited universities and peer reviews...I admire your faith.

Are you aware that an overwhelming majority of scientists reject young-Earth creation myths wholeheartedly? There's a reason for that. 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences don't believe in a personal god. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution and an old Earth is much higher, above 99.8% (citations at end).

So what if you plagiarized a list of names from a tabloid? I bet none of those scientists even published anything for peer-review, anyway. I've checked my online database of my accredited university, which has a subscription to pretty much every journal, and found no religious fables masquerading as real science.

Can you name one piece of work? Just one, by one creationist scientist? Don't tell me it's my homework, like you had the nerve to do to Goat. This is your homework, I assure you. You have come to debate woefully unprepared and we've already helped you out more than we're obligated to.

Delgado, C. "Finding evolution in medicine", NIH Record 58 (15) 28 July 2006

Larson, E.J. and Witham, L. “Leading scientists still reject God�, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

I could care less about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Their opinions mean nothing to me. What is this?? some kind of popularity contest?? It is estimated that atheists make up about 2% of the world population. So going by that atheism is backwards and wrong.

Are you here to debate or play games? "I don't care" isn't a valid counter-argument. If anything, it's incredulous and asinine.

I was trying to put into perspective for you just how abysmally small your list of scientists are. You can't avoid forming your own arguments in a debate because you think scientists agree without someone countering that a vast majority of the world's scientists actually don't.

The world's inhabitants aren't all experts, therefore, you are appealing to popularity, a fallacy. Also, you are committing a very similar fallacy, of appealing to the authority of your scientists, because you are not demonstrating a knowledge of their science in your arguments. You'll now accuse me of committing the same fallacies, even though I'm appealing to expertise and scientific consensus (which is much different), and on your silly game will go.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

Where did you see me claim that 75% of the population are atheists?

Now declare your specific religious belief system and we may be able to continue the conversation.

Declare to me who these 75% are and I will declare to you my belief system.

Anybody who has a different belief system to you, which at a minimum must be at least 75% even if you are Catholic and comprise approx 25% of the population. That's who.

Your turn.

This just shows your lack of understanding or just your knee-jerk responses without thinking first. I was talking about atheism....you need to stay focused on the particular posts that you are replying to. Again I was referring to atheists versus theists. The % of people who are atheists are an extreme minority compared to those who are theists. Whether that theists worships Thor or Jesus they are still a theists....get it??? Now to answer your question....just look at me as a disciple of Jesus the Son of the Most High God.