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?

[Joab]

re Joab Post2871--How many parsecs do you consider close?


This is a new word for me and I looked it up on Wikipedia because I was curious. My simple answer to your question is that I am completely out of my depth on most science subjects and especially so on any calculation involving parsecs which seem to be a new calibration of universal time or maybe not. Amazing that people can be that intelligent. Does this disqualify me from having an opinion on science? If a person knows little about the intricacies of a religious doctrine are they to be excluded from a discussion regarding religion. I do not think that you are saying this and I thank you for a new word. I still do not know what it means. If we remove all those who argue from ignorance as it is called then in this context I am guilty as charged and excluded by my own admission.

My apologies Mr Zero, my question was a bit snarky and perhaps a little conceited as well. A parsec is a method of measuring distance between celestial objects whereas light years are a measurement of time if you will.

You said this

It shows the closeness of the two pursuits of science and religion

I was making a smart alec comment on closeness. I personally see them being parsecs apart.

Sorry.

[olavisjo]

.

Behold digital evolution!

Now we are getting somewhere.

What is the most novel feature that these programs have come up with and did it come from the elements of natural evolution or from the intelligent design of the programers?

[olavisjo]

.

Quantum computing at this point is just science fiction.

You're wrong again. The ignorance in your arguments is absolutely staggering.

You will have to forgive me, I don't get to go to the movies a lot these days, my science fiction is a bit behind. I will look into this and get back to you.

[youtube][/youtube]

In the mean time can you tell me how you would program this simple program in Quantum programing...

X = 7001 * 7841; // product of two large prime numbers
FOR I = 2 TO X ^ 0.5;
IF MOD( X, I ) == 0 THEN RETURN I;
NEXT I;
RETURN ERROR;

[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.

[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' ]

[Danmark]

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

[Danmark]

re Joab Post2871--How many parsecs do you consider close?


This is a new word for me and I looked it up on Wikipedia because I was curious. My simple answer to your question is that I am completely out of my depth on most science subjects and especially so on any calculation involving parsecs which seem to be a new calibration of universal time or maybe not. Amazing that people can be that intelligent. Does this disqualify me from having an opinion on science? If a person knows little about the intricacies of a religious doctrine are they to be excluded from a discussion regarding religion. I do not think that you are saying this and I thank you for a new word. I still do not know what it means. If we remove all those who argue from ignorance as it is called then in this context I am guilty as charged and excluded by my own admission.

Yes, you would by definition not be able to have an 'informed' opinion on science. And the person you describe would not have an 'informed' opinion on religion.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post2871--Yes, you would by definition not be able to have an 'informed' opinion on science. And the person you describe would not have an 'informed' opinion on religion.


This refers to this, my reply to Joab's inquiry about parsecs.

This is a new word for me and I looked it up on Wikipedia because I was curious. My simple answer to your question is that I am completely out of my depth on most science subjects and especially so on any calculation involving parsecs which seem to be a new calibration of universal time or maybe not. Amazing that people can be that intelligent. Does this disqualify me from having an opinion on science? If a person knows little about the intricacies of a religious doctrine are they to be excluded from a discussion regarding religion. I do not think that you are saying this and I thank you for a new word. I still do not know what it means. If we remove all those who argue from ignorance as it is called then in this context I am guilty as charged and excluded by my own admission.

You persist with this cleverness which really undermines your contributions. Does your scientific belief that biogenesis has very likely been replicated in the outer universe fall within the scope of the opening post demand for evidence?

[Danmark]

You persist with this cleverness which really undermines your contributions. Does your scientific belief that biogenesis has very likely been replicated in the outer universe fall within the scope of the opening post demand for evidence?

"Biogenesis?" I think you mean "abiogenesis."

Biogenesis is the term applied to the idea that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction, like a chicken laying eggs which develop into chickens. In other words, biogenesis represents the idea that life does not arise from non-living material.

Here's the key part of a Wikipedia article on abiogenesis:
[I suggest reading the entire article. It contains interesting information, including a prescient observation by Darwin about early organic compounds that could have survived in a non biotic environment, but would have been absorbed or 'devoured' in the presence of living creatures.]

In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
The underlying hypothesis held by Oparin, Haldane, Bernal, Miller and Urey was that conditions on the primeval Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simple precursors. A recent reanalysis of the saved vials containing the original extracts that resulted from a different but similar experiment by Miller (where H2S was included in the mixture of gases), using current and more advanced analytical equipment and technology, has uncovered more biochemicals than originally discovered in the previous Miller-Urey experiment. One of the more important findings was 23 amino acids, far more than the five originally discovered in the previous experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post2881--"Biogenesis?" I think you mean "abiogenesis."

Thank you, I think I do. I lost an a somewhere. my apologies for the confusion. Does your scientific belief that abiogenesis has very likely been replicated in the outer universe fall within the scope of the opening post demand for evidence ?Is this within the scope of the opening post challenge.
So I think it highly likely that not only did life evolve naturally on Earth, but on other planets as well. No designer needed.
Apologies again for the confusion and thanks for the help. I ask you this question because of the similarity of claim between this and some religions presentations of cosmic interactions. We all look up when we think of God for some reason. This question relates to your DNA, Darwin, Crick debate with olavisjo which I shall observe from afar. I must not enter because I would be out of my league.

Are you confident of your stated position on this issue and is your scientific hypothesis in regard to abiogenesis replication in the universe based on proof that is so robust and final that it escapes the scope of the opening post. I would love if someone else would push this point as I will no longer do it. Please do not say that the natural does not enter into the opening post because it is natural because that would be the equivalent of me saying God is everywhere. Do you want to add these hypothetical likely occurrences to our existing natural references before they have been discovered. Is genetics attempting to create artificial life. Is that natural? Is that wise? I feel that it is not for me but I really do not know. Ethics and control seem to be very important here. Have you faith in the validity of scientific ethics?
Answer my first question please.