any creationists about?

[Jan Ardena]

Jan,

you thought as much? on what grounds?

On the grounds that you said;

"um EXCUSE ME??? firstly i do not like people to decide upon what i assume or do not assume".

You don't have a problem with that do you?

...and when have i assumed what other assume?

I gave you an example in my last post to you.

throughout this thread i have asked for answers, i have tried to assume as little as possible.

I don't doubt you, but you have revealed some assumptions, maybe inadvertantly.

not especially, no.

Apologies, I assumed with the name 'longlostlady' that you were female.
If I'm barking up the wrong tree, then I don't understand how referring to you as "she", in that context is seen as not have manners.

as i remember i put a after that comment. it was meant in a very tongue in cheek way,...

Firstly, that symbol does not me "tongue in cheek".
And why, if it was meant as that, did you use such a negative illustration. One that would be taken offensively regardless of your intention?

actually, and i'm beginning to rather resent your seeming inability to step away from the defensive position.

I do not understand your point. Could you please clarify?

firstly i'm new. secondly i don't think anyone has "mocked" creationism.

I take your first point, and I understamd how you arrive at the second.

you've put forward your arguments, they've put forward theirs. fair enough, i say. i've heard both sides and it's been very interesting for me to read the debate. i'd say it's been fair -

Just out of curiosity, how do you explain "their" side of the so-called argument?
Because it would appear to me, that if the document has been mistranslated, from a source which has absolutely no point, is nothing but a hoax, and God could not have inspired men, because such an entity has not been empirically proven to exist, is not really an argument. Would you agree?

where would you suggest?

Try punching "creationism" into a search engine.

if you're pissed off with me for starting this thread then i'm sorry,

What?
Are you crazy?
I'm delighted. And don't think your intelligence has gone unnoticed, your ability to stick to the subject matter. It is just a pity that that isn't the general norm, and it has to be stated.

but you didn't have to contribute or continue to contribute if that's the case.

I'm still waiting for your response from before this bit of heat.

point taken. i don't see myself as the one taking things personally in this situation.

I didn't think you did, but just in case I was mistaken, I wanted to let you know.

Jan.

 

[Anomalous]

That's not very easy to follow, especially when time is not on your side.
Could you perhaps skip to the points to evolution being the reason why the first life was created on earth?

Thanks
Jan.

That is the answer to your years of quest of the truth.

So, I recommend U to understand most of it and do more research on the same after.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/08/GeneticAlgorithms/default.aspx?

According to my beliefs even if U accept that life was just a accident based on above evidence, U dont have enough reasons to not to believe in GOD.
GOD can do all that is there in the evolution, according to gods definations.

If U dont think GOD is not smart enough to create evolution then man has already surpassed GODs capabilities because in the above link we do that now.

 

[KennyJC]

Try punching "creationism" into a search engine.

Haha, is that it Jan? Your alternative theory to how life began? Creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

You used the 'C' word, therefor you have lost what little credability you have left in this argument. You chose to believe the account written by men who didn't even know what DNA is. I doubt you know what it is either

 

[Sarkus]

this is only one part of the equation im afraid. the law of entropy basically says that all ordered systems eventually progress into a state of disorder. that however does not prevent the elements of that system from being reordered in different ways. how could there be anything in a state of order whatsoever if entropy truly prevailed? entropy is basically decay, its what gives things a limited time span of existence in a state of order, but you will find that for every system that falls into disorder, its parts also eventually become part of other new orders, the nature of which tends to be different from the original. your statement here does not mean that the world must be created just because entropy prevails, you just failed to understand that order and disorder are part of a circuit, and entropy is not the only actor on systemic function. failing systems that are not well equipped to survive fall into entropy far more quickly and their elements form newer systems, and through sheer probability eventually will form into a system that "decays" much more slowly, therefore constituting a potentially viable system, one that may proliferate.

or take your estimation of it and look at it from a macro scale. a protein or chain of proteins, the eventual building blocks of cellular life are a very small ordered part of a whole primordial world of disorder and entropy. the first organisms were tiny and lived in a chaotic environment. animals and humans compared to the natural environment that is made up of the entire earth are tiny little ordered specks in a sea of disorder and entropy. the law may be correct that entropy increases overall, but one person or a one-celled bacteria represent only a tiny little part of the overall system and while disorder may increase, they remain enclaves of ordered complexity within the system.

none of that points to creation as a prerequisite for life.

Interesting side-track here.... The Game of LIFE!

http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html

The little simulation that was devised by a guy called John Conway.
It is basically a simulation of a "universe" where all the rules are known. All three of them.

You can start any sized grid and put "chaos" into it, and with just those three rules, order follows.

Now our Universe has a few more than 3 rules - probably - although it may be that we can eventually break the rules of our Universe down to something similar - who knows.

Anyhoo - what this shows, to some degree, is that chaos is only chaos with no rules. Once rules are applied, chaos can no longer exist.