Shared publicly  - 
Simulating the "evolution" of watches

Creationist freaks suggest that if you put a smashed up watch into a box and shake it, it won't reassemble into a watch - therefore god.

Well, here's a real experiment showing that watches can evolve. Downloadable code and all. Great piece of work.

#evolution #simulation #watch #science
Mo Lunat's profile photoByron Adams's profile photoJoseline Rosario Rosa's profile photoFilippo Salustri's profile photo
cdk007 is pretty great. His way of arguing has made him one of my favorite anti-creationist debaters.
Unbelievable piece of work..I didn't know this creationist "theory" sounds just stupid...
Really well done video & simulations. Leaves nothing to argue with.
Could you post a video of the clock pieces evolving into clocks?
Cool experiment. Isn't it amazing what computers can do?
Neat. Also, I don't understand why so many ppl feel that creationism and evolutionism have to be mutually exclusive.
Grrr, as +David Röll says, video not available in Germany. No wonder the Pirate Party is on 9% here and climbing.
+David Röll I don't see how imperfection has anything to do with whether there is a creator or not. It is certainly possible that a creator set everything into motion from the beginning.
I had a GA/GP course in college and it was one of my favorite courses.
+Josh Thies Well, I'd have to have a better understanding of physics to argue that. Others have done it, though. Victor Stenger comes to mind.
But if we stay on the biological side, that creator must have either been stupid or sadistic ;-).
+David Röll Well then let's leave it at sadistic because stupid is a most unlikely scenario for a creator. ;-)
To be fair... it is only slightly extremely obvious.
Elegant and beautiful.
It took some intelligence to come up with that design :) I believe in the big bang... In the beginning God said.. and bang all was created in 6 days.
BTW, you got it backwards.. I wouldn't say: if you put a smashed up watch into a box and shake it, it won't reassemble into a watch - therefore god.
Rather, because God exists and has revealed Himself and the truth of creation THEREFORE we know that a watch or any major evolution could NOT happen without a designer
Just because you can string words together doesn't mean what you say makes sense.
Wow, I thought evolution-deniers were a myth. So these people actually exist? Do they all have people helping them get dressed in the morning?
Thank you very much +Emily Maynard . Okay so half of one in a billion chance? Can you multiply that by how long Earth has been livable? Okay and now can you realise why science/rational thinking/critical thinking/logic will always trump you and your fantasies.
sheer genius, and should shut up creationists once and for all, but it probably wont.
Ray Ng
interesting, but still evolution is still a bit of a fantasy to me. nice algorithm. u didnt accidentally, by trial and error, over a few million years wrote it did u? u had to use ur brains to come up with this. besides, the very foundation of evolution doesnt make sense. if u consider in terms of hardware and software; the physical and the electric signals to make the physical function, then u have to imagine that somehow, by accident we have a piece of hardware suddenly come into existence, preinstalled with the right software to operate a biological machinery to make a duplicate copy of itself.
@Emily, this is not at all obvious: It requires years of biblical study and social indoctrination from birth through childhood. We (scientists and critical thinkers) will never agree with you (creationists) and it's highly unlikely that any Google+ conversation will convince either of us that the other is right, no matter how many people on either side of the argument make their case. No matter how stridently. No matter how cogently. No matter how passionately. We will not agree. So, we either keep bashing each other, or we learn to live with each other. I prefer the latter, but bashing is fun too!
Could you please apply some logic and reason to your post. It doesn't make sense.

It reads as this "This is what i have been told to think so i believe it even if it doesn't make sense. I will apply this, what i have been taught, to any possible situation irrelevant of its' irrelevancy."
Yes, I rather put my faith in evolution and randomness than in a mythical God that there is no evidence for. That's what is the difference between religion and science. One relies on faith in things not possible to prove. The other one relies on ideas that in the end should be able to be falsified or proven by hard facts.
+Ray Ng In the beginning of the video he goes on to explain that this proves the theory of evolution, not any theory about abiogenesis (to see the difference between those two concepts I refer to Wikipedia for the one interested)
@Emily- yes. I was just disagreeing with your comment about it being obvious. It's not, or I would have seen it.
+Henrik Jernstedt No matter how well you serve up the information, they will never be able to consume it. A few good years of brainwashing is all you need to make people completely resistant to logic/reason and critical thinking.
Ray Ng
henrik pretty much sums it up. evolution is another religion. creationist believes that everything is designed and created by an intelligent being. athiest/evolutionist believe it's done by an entity without intelligence. "God did it" vs "Evolution did it". secular science is not unbiased, it starts with the premise that evolution is fact, and weave their story around actual scientific discoveries to fit that theory.
+Benjamen Meiers Yes, I know it's a study in futility but if we just let "them" say whatever "they" want without contradicting (even if we know it leads nowhere) "they"1 usually claim 'Victory' for their side.

And it's fun when totally irrelevant arguments is bringed forth :)
+Ray Ng The problem with your argument is that scientists observed the facts and came to their conclusion. They didn't come up with a conclusion and then look for evidence (as in with your argument).
Emily and Ray don't seem to understand the basic idea behind evolution. let me try. Possibly futile, task, but I'm a glutton for punishment.
Imagine a simple organism, that has limited locomotion. Let's use a snail, for example. It can crawl slowly to find food. Somewhere along the way, a snail is born with a slightly different genetic structure (mutation, for example). Perhaps it's lower body isn't as strong as normal, so it can't move as fast. It has a harder time finding food. It is less likely to survive. Assume that only 1 out of 1000 snails are born with that genetic difference. As more of these snails fail to live to maturity and reproduce, that particular genetic difference will become less frequent in the genetic code of the overall gene pool, over time.
Now there's a snail that has the opposite; a stronger lower body, able to find food more easily. It's has a better chance of survival.
Eventually, just as the negative difference becomes less prevalent, the positive difference will become more so. As more of the 'stronger' snails mature, with a greater chance of survival, they pass along this trait to their offspring. Eventually, over a very long period of time, the overall genetic pool is changed as well. It may begin with only 0.1% of the population, but after hundreds of generations, it may be a dominant, normal trait.
Now factor in changes to the environment, in which a previously unnoticed genetic factor becomes relevant. What if some snails had the ability to store water more easily than others? Well, this trait could exist for a long time, never growing or shrinking int he population, until a long, protracted drought. At that time, those snails with that hidden, previously irrelevant ability, now have the greater chance of survival. So, even after the drought ends in a few years, after a few generations, this trait will remain, and become the 'norm' for the new population that regrows from the survivors.

These basic concepts of minor genetic differences have been proven. It's not guess work; there's hard, verifiable and reproducible evidence that this exists.

Now, Emily, you say there's a 1-in-1,000,000,000 chance of something like this occurring. I would tend to agree. Depending on the organism, perhaps it's even a smaller percentage. However, when you consider how many generations there have been in all of the lifeforms on this planet, combined with the verified, observable occurrence of evolution in simple organisms in a laboratory, it all adds up. If you think we're suggesting that evolution happens overnight, then you are mistaken. It takes very small, incremental steps, over a very, very long period of time.

The biggest reason most creationists try to (unsuccessfully) debunk evolution is that because it would take millions of years, this contradicts their belief that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. It's the same 'logic' they use to try to debunk dinosaurs. Of course, they have no problem using fossil fuels in their vehicles. Ironic.

The word 'theory' in reference to evolution doesn't mean that we're guessing that the process exists. It simply means that it's not fully understood. But I don't need to see the furniture inside of a house to know that the house exists. I can see the house, I can touch the house. Saying evolution isn't real is like saying that because you can't see the furniture inside the house, that the house isn't real, either.
+Emily Maynard Did you watch the video? The chances of pile of bits to a clock in one shot are insurmountable, quite right. But piles of gears ever more capable of out-surviving other piles of gears in an environment that needs accurate timekeeping are also very unlikely, fortunately there's been a lot of time to keep trying.

Eyes developed in a similar way. From a single dot that can tell if there is light, to a collection in a round shape that can tell where it's coming from, to ones that can begin to sue that the estimate the shape of light things, to ones that can tell different wavelengths of light apart...

Each step is small and very unlikely, it takes millions of years for the tiny step to happen, and many other tiny steps caused the bearer to die along the way, but once a creature has this tiny step, it and it's family soon does away with the ones that don't have the advantage by getting to the food first.

No life form has ever accidentally fallen into its complete current form in one shot, the environment allows the fittest to survive which means progress toward complex well suited life will always happen. The next interesting frontier is to work out how that environment came about.
+Ray Ng Evolution and science aren't a religion. In a religion, your beliefs never change. They are set in stone.
In science, beliefs can, and do change on a regular basis, based upon new, verifiable evidence.
A scientist is willing to change their mind in the presence of compelling evidence.
A creationist is not.
Evolutionists who believe in the Big Bang forget that everything is steralized due to the extreme heat, thus the need for a Creator to produce life.
+Lori Eldridge That's a new one. Pretty creative.
Life began a few billion years after the big bang, when it all was a bit cooler, you know ;).
+Lori Eldridge There was nothing to sterilise during The Big Bang... Life evolved through abiogenesis many years after. Though i did chuckle. It's funny how many rounds of incoherent arguments against evolution come out, but the next time it comes up, all the same arguments rear their ugly heads again.
+Lori Eldridge Creationists that say things like this don't understand how inorganic compounds can combine to form organic compounds, and use an oversimplistic view of the Big Bang to try to debunk actual, verified science.
+Michael Edwards yes, science changes all the time, which is why true scientist don't really "hold" to anything. Not all that long ago, the world was flat. A scientist would hold that the opinion of intelligent design is a viable opinion (in the sense that it could be true) however there is no scientific way to prove it. At the same time, there is no way to disprove creation. Science and religion do not contradict unless science IS your religion. "Creationist" don't need to prove anything nor would they necessarily want to. It serves no purpose to them. Someone using science to disprove the existence of God (or prove, really) is no real scientist and obviously has some kind of grudge. What's the need of so much energy going into these "proofs"? The blind leading the blind.
As I see it, the problem with radical creationist is that they see the "creator" as a dude sitting on a desk with a pencil on his ear and a plan on what a frog should be, that is very wrong, God is incredibly more mystic than that, he did not "designed" a frog, a cat or dumb persons, that was evolution and the proof is so big, consistent, and conclusive, that denying it is plain stupid and you will not be taken seriously anywhere if you do. Now, if you want to find God, you must look into physics, chemistry and math, those set the rules for not only evolution to happen, but to every other single thing in the entire universe, and the perfection that can be seen in those areas is so astonishing that is the only way to get a very very remote little idea of what God is. Neither I, nor you or even a control freak minister getting rich somewhere are capable of understanding what God is, so we only get a glimpse with very very hard work trying to remotely understand how those little atoms work.
Ray Ng
+Michael Edwards it seems to me that the fervor of atheist in their belief in evolution actually resembles religion. abt the snail, evolutionists purposely ignore the very foundation of life, how did it start? most assumes it just happen, no real debate abt it. how did life started and how did it turn into a snail in the first place?
let's see, the first organism, if evolution is true, would need to 'know' what to 'eat' (for food and energy), 'know' what it's made of (so it can reproduce itself), how to duplicate itself, etc. i cannot comprehend how it could just happen at one instant in time, all by accident.
abt religion not changing. Jesus changed the Jewish religion in a very big way when He came along.
At 5:47 it is noted a hand binds to a gear, when the graphic shows a hand binding to a spring, there is an editorial correction required here.

How does the mutation occur? That is the big problem with evolution; there are no proofs of spontaneous mutations or specifically protein changes and proteins are the "things" of life. We see moderate amounts of variations in all living things, yet no great changes that would truly be a mutation that remains. Often we see changes that come and go, and in fact, evolution is quite true but in the other direction! We are devolving.

As human generations pass we see more changes that occur that are deleterious where each generation is carrying more small changes (changes that are well within the expected minor variations) that are negative as we see with constant increases in heart disease, cancers, and the like.

I really like this study and obviously I am a creationist and I don't believe in evolution as to the origin of humans and all plant and animal life forms, but indeed this is a very neat and interesting study. And it does make one think. I agree that both sides will spend much time debating and arguing this topic, but I would hope it would remain in a positive and honorable way; nothing worse than a conversation that devolves (pardon the pun) into a yelling match.

My big problem is that each time we "find" the missing link, further study shows that it is some primate that is similar to humans but falls short in some measure of in fact being that spontaneous mutation to cross from one generation to the next. I think evolution is a great idea but I haven't seen proof and the more time that goes by, more scientists are disagreeing withe the theory or stepping away from it.
+Bob Collins Nothing of what you say is actually true. Where do you get this misinformation from? It's astounding.
and evolutionist freaks think people came from monkeys!
Hell naw, everything was created in 6 days. Poof just like that. The dinosaurs were naughty so "God" wiped them out... they ate those damn apples and wanted to be like God, in god's image.

Hell naw, even dinosaurs didn't exist, some anthropologists made those fossils we keep finding out of papier mache.

Hell naw, man did not evolve from teh apes. God made him out of snips and snails and puppy dog tails of course.

Hell naw, even Thomas in the bible needed proof. Show us proof that evolution is true. Till then that God that I can't see, touch, smell, or feel is real.

Hell naw, what natural selection, Noah selected all the animals you see today and kept them aboard his big ol' ark, every single species you see today. Evolution is not true and does not happen, so he had to have had every single species, unless of course "God" decided that there weren't enough and made few more along the way.

But oh wait, wasn't creation only in the first 6 days?

And oh wait, that must have been one huge ark. Hmmm...

Pffft... I think I've said enough. Use your brain(your proverbial heart is in there too) and think for yourself instead of ranting off what you've been spoon fed all your life.
And creationist freak thinks woman was made from the rib of a man!
David Roll, you can say all that I say is not true, but do you have counter proof of what I say? I am open to hear honest scientists talk about it, yet it was Darwin who said that if we could study things below the cellular level this theory would probably fail. As I hear more and read more, many scientists are not able to find spontaneous protein changes in nature or the laboratory for that matter. What can I say, it is scientists saying this, not me. Your comments on my comment are a straw man argument where you say nothing of what I say is true.
Do the offspring result from the mainspring? ;)
+Dave Winter No, you have that wrong. Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive, because they make contradictory claims about the world. Those claims, a great many of them, can be explored, and the truth can be known. They make mutually exclusive claims. They cannot both be correct. Since the method of science are highly granular and contain a built-in method for self-correction, science has won the argument, evolution is the correct description of the world, to the extent that we currently understand and can describe it. Furthermore, the understanding offered by evolution is continually enhanced and refined. It gets better, the more we learn, because we find and correct the errors, and because the base of knowledge is expanded to cover things we couldn't previously explain.
Dave Winter, yom, who's yom, God or man? There is a lot of Biblical question of what each day of creation was in our sense of time.
+Mark Amos you might be right that the Creationists can never be persuaded. However, you cannot peacefully coexist with people who seek to undermine and ultimately obliterate science as the basis for understanding the world. They do mean to destroy you.
Alright, here we go again with more stuff that people want to keep relating back to human origins. Bottom line, we don't know the exact truth of how things happened. Currently, humans are only able to observe what they can see and what other humans tried to write down in the past. Both sides have valid points, but the bottom line is both are sides are theories if you try to apply them to how human beings coming into existence or how the universe came into existence itself.

If we knew for sure how it happened, there would be no point of arguing because it would be like arguing over the fact that the Earth is spherical or flat. We know the truth about this. We don't know the truth about how anything happened in order to result in humans sitting here questioning how they came into existence.

I also here a lot of what people believe. The fact that you have to believe something rather than knowing it demonstrates my point a little better.
Yup, +Bob Collins. Even Jesus Christ was an immortal who decided to die, y'know coz he was 30+ years old, and now we know that a day isn't a day in the bible. No disrespect to anyone intended.
Woman wasn't made from the rib of a man. She was made in China. Just like everything else. Those things look so fragile and easy to break.
Where an explanation stops or fails to explain, thats where faith begins...
+Bob Collins >How does the mutation occur? That is the big problem with evolution; there are no proofs of spontaneous mutations or specifically protein changes and proteins are the "things" of life.
We do see spontaneus mutations all the time. DNA/Genes are the "things" of life. Also, mutations do affect proteins. Read a book on biology, for a change. We're talking fundamentals there.

>We see moderate amounts of variations in all living things, yet no great changes that would truly be a mutation that remains.
This happens over a long period of time. You need a lot of generations to see the effects of this. Yet, experiments with thousands of generations of bacteria (E. coli) show exactly what Evolution Theory predicts.

>we see with constant increases in heart disease, cancers, and the like.
That's a matter of lifestyle and has little to do with evolution.

>My big problem is that each time we "find" the missing link
There are no missing links. We have a huge amount of intermediates. Go check the next natural museum.

>further study shows that it is some primate that is similar to humans but falls short in some measure of in fact being that spontaneous mutation to cross from one generation to the next.
What are you even trying to say with this?

>I think evolution is a great idea but I haven't seen proof
That's either because you haven't looked for it or because you didn't want to see it ;-).

>and the more time that goes by, more scientists are disagreeing withe the theory or stepping away from it.
That's absolutely false. How do you get this idea? Evolution is the most tested theory in science.
+Dave Winter You and I are offering entirely different basis for the mutually exclusive nature of these two belief systems. Your explanation appears to grant the favored Abrahamic Apologist argument of equivalency between religion and science. They are not equivalent. Science rejects dogma (which the religious would call divine revelation or received wisdom or ancient holy scripture) as an invalid source of knowledge. They cannot be "merged" except by some new age relativist world view which rejects the concept of truth in favor of your truth and my truth. Furthermore, merging them isn't desirable.

If you haven't yet, consider reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris, and God Is Not Great by the recently departed Christopher Hitchens. You'll enjoy them, both.

[Edit: added the word "apologist" to clarify that this is a modern assertion, not an inherent part of the Abrahamic religions themselves.]
Sorry, my religious beliefs are NOT set in stone, they are capable of evolving based on new evidence. Since I grew up believing in a literal six-day creation week I have been arguing this subject longer than most of you have been alive and I love the discussion as long as it doesn't devolve into personalities. That's my number one complaint about evolutionists who are confronted with someone who actually believes in creation, they fail to use scientific arguments and just resort to poking fun, name calling and derogatory remarks. This post deserves a more scientific and respectful approach. I love reading the comments that actually shed light on the subject, those of you who are too small-minded to do that are just bores. The post presents an interesting algorhythm, but has anyone ever actually seen it happen? Can you make it happen? Oh wait, that would be intelligent design because someone with a brain set it in motion. How do the oddsmakers in Vegas like the odds of this happening?
Are you intelligent enough to understand the question you are asking?
You don't have to have any intelligence at all to ask a question. Only to answer it. But where are the answers? Laugh All you're good for is to ask a question. I rest my case.
As a definition of faith, it means you don't know for sure or there is some part that is unknown. You may have faith that something is true, but that doesn't mean it is true. Let's seek the truth and not pretend to know it.
+david hewell that's all very well, but let's talk about pragmatism. While it is almost always pointless and misguided for a scientist to try and prove against a religious belief, I think it's perfectly justifiable for them to point out the flaws in someone's religious (or other non scientific) arguments. We're all taking part in this debate as a direct result of millions of small, incremental improvements in science and technology, made over hundreds of years by thousands of scientists. If we want to continue to progress as a species and solve some of the really hard problems that will face us (over population, global warming, disease etc) then we'll have to put our faith in science, not religion. To this end I think it's very important to challenge those how would spread a distorted view of science or try to claim it's somehow as equally subjective as religion.
Science produces results, religion mostly seems to produce wars.
And man created God not the other way around.
Damn, thats deep, David. People were saying this when you were half the age you are now. What makes you say this now? Things are a little different now, you know?
+Ray Ng But I'm not an atheist (I'm a Deist), and I know that evolution is fact. Don't assume that anyone that 'believes' in evolution is an atheist. That's extremely presumptuous and ignorant of you.
And most evolutionists do not discount the question of how life originally began. If you take the time to look at the relevant research, instead of coming to a conclusion without reviewing the facts, you'd see that your assumption is, again, wrong.
And it didn't happen 'all at one time'. It was a very, very slow process. This is recognized by scientific evidence.
Finally, Jesus didn't 'change' the Jewish religion. First off, the prophecy of a Messiah already existed in the Jewish faith. The split between the existing Jews and the new Christians was based upon whether or not they believed that Jesus was the Messiah.
I'm not sure how seriously I can take you when you don't seem to understand your own religion and how it came about.

+Bob Collins There are proofs of spontaneous mutation and genetic aberrations. Even if we don't fully understand how something occurs, we can still observe that it does occur. Consider gravity. We know that gravity exists and that it is a real force. However, we do not know exactly how it works. Therefore, discounting evolution just because we don't completely understand how it works is just as irrational as discounting gravity for the same reason. In fact, since a creationist can't fully explain how creation works, does that mean you'd use the same logic to discount it's possibility?

Finally, there is no more 'missing link' as the term was used about 50 years ago. Continuing discoveries are fine-tuning the understanding of human evolution, but there's no big gaping hole in the development path.

As far as providing proofs? Google is a thing now. It's up to you to decide if you're willing to look at the research.

+Gary Longsine Creationism and evolution are not automatically exclusive. Consider this; if you believe in an all-powerful Creator, then why isn't it possible that such a creator set everything in motion, and designed life to have this adaptability?
Creationism and evolution are only mutually exclusive if you choose them to be. As a Deist, I believe in a Creator, and I believe the this Creator laid down a foundation and set life along its path. And part of that path is evolution.
+Philippe Laflamme Why would I share the code? I don't have it. One should be able to download it from the youtube page. Didn't you bother to watch the video? Code access is clearly marked there.
To Michael Edwards: Alright let's end this argument, Explain to me the truth of how everything happened from the start of time to human beings. Take as many words as you want. If you can do this with complete knowing and truth, there is no more argument.
+Dave Winter I think I understand your argument, but I remain unconvinced of its utility. You seem to be using "fundamental" in two different senses, in the same sentence. Religious fundamentals are dogmatic received wisdom and not open to question. Scientific fundamentals are basic tools and understandings, subject to improvement and revision as knowledge is gained. This muddles your argument.

(If I understand you correctly, you do not assert that the belief systems should be merged, nor that they are equivalent. Thanks for your clarifying remarks.)
The whole discussion is typical for the condition of the #USA.
Once you were leading the world in science, democracy, technology, human rights and your claim: land of the free.
During the last decade you have become such a bad shallow copy of yourself, it truly is sad to watch a nation going down like this. But in the end, even the Romans learned that lesson and the next leader will too after 50-100 years.
Your primaries ( republicans) are a fantastic unrealistic freak show to watch. Speechless, most of the times scary. If one would publicly say, that citizens shall die, while they can't afford healthcare, usually the UN sends troops and doctors to help those poor bastards.
Here you are cheered by the audience by proposing those cruel acts to your own people.

As I said: how can you run Harvard and teach this crap as an alternative. What a stretch....
+Sylvia Carcich You're one of the exceptions to the general rule. Most Christian/Jewish Creationists that I've met insist that the 7-days is not an analogy, but literal truth. They fail to see the contradictions in believing in an omnipotent God, who had to not only take a full 6 days for creation, but then had to rest for a day. Or who could make Adam from dust, but then needed one of Adam's ribs in order to create Eve.
The religious literalists are the ones I worry about the most. Any religious person that is willing to exam their ideas and beliefs, and use the intelligence that God gave them to examine their world and observe it, is on the right track.
+Byron Adams wrote:
"Rather, because God exists and has revealed Himself and the truth of creation THEREFORE we know that a watch or any major evolution could NOT happen without a designer"

You're kidding, right? You're assuming god exists and then using the assumption to prove the need for a designer. That's both circular reasoning and complete bullshit.
stop being a dick creationists. Youre entitled to your opinion. But nobody gives a fuck about what you think.
It has been my experience that those who reject evolution have not taken the time to study and understand the science because they have never actually seen the evidence.
Since no one knows everything and no measurement can be absolute, mankind will always be subject to mystery at some level.
The problem is that people think in terms of absolutes.
Logic works in terms of absolutes. X = Y is an absolute.
But even though our absolute statement cannot be said to be absolutely true we HAVE to operate as if some things are absolutely true. These are our beliefs.
Logic is not necessarily how the universe works it is just the best way we have to understand and operate in the universe.
Even the most frothing fundamentalist is operating with logical reasoning using their own basic axioms.
But the basic axioms of any logical thread are really nothing but concepts.
Asking someone to abandon a basic axiom can sometimes be likened to removing the ground upon which they stand.
It is hard to adjust your basic beliefs. We ignore or are blind to evidence that contradicts our beliefs.
This is why the arguments go on and on.
My basic logical axiom is, "I don't know everything."
That is really the only thing that I do know with certainty - and it could actually be wrong since I don't know everything.
Do you see how easily a concept becomes absolute?
The point here is that religious fundamentalists are blind to scientific evidence. There's no point throwing more evidence at them. They will not see it.
+Jason Varner You go first.
That's the point, Jason. None of us can do what you propose. That's why I'm willing to combine my belief in Creationism with my knowledge of science and evolution. You seem to want it to be definitive, one way or the other, exclude one or the other. I don't see that's necessary.

+Telem Athics Well, it didn't take long for the anti-American fanatics to jump in and try to divert the discussion. This isn't just an issue in the United States. It's a discussion that is occurring in many countries, and one that affects everyone.
+Emily Maynard wrote: "There is obviously an intelligent designer. If you look at the chances of some complex structure forming on its own without guidance or reason, the chances are so slim they are almost half of one in a billion."

You're wrong. I don't know what cult you belong to, but you're either ignorant of science or deluded and paranoid. The irreducible complexity argument has been demolished in several different ways. It is utterly without merit. You might as well try to argue that the Earth is flat.
Cong Ma
Just a comment: the neutral but "non-useful" parts arising from random mutation, albeit non-useful for each individual generation, do make an impact in the course of evolution. This is because new mutations can arise from those parts in the future. If you eliminate each non-useful part from the simulation after each turn, both the distribution of functional/non-functional configurations and the rate of converging to "goodness" may look quite different, likely worse. That kinda demonstrates why it's the diversity of gene pool is a good thing.
@Gary Longsine, then what should we do? Continue to argue with them? No, I would say this is fruitless. Try to convince them with better education and critical thinking? I think this has a better shot (but see Chris Mooney's piece...) So what is the alternative?

I think the best alternative is to legislate against them. To spend more on campaigns than they do to keep them out of office. To put up more candidates than they do for public office (both locally and nationally).

But arguing with them truly is fruitless - viz the discussion above (and below). I doubt that you'll find your points (cogent and insightful, though they are) will have convinced even one creationist that they are, indeed, misinformed. In fact, I would suggest that most of the people reading this thread are rational, scientific minded people, with a few creationist trolls egging you on.
To Michael Edwards Yes you have got my point. I can't go first. My answer would by I just don't know. Is this your answer? If so, why argue about beliefs?

If we don't know, the only way to know is by discovering the truth. Until we have done that, there is little point of convincing each other to believe something. Instead, if you really want to know the truth, work on figuring it out somehow. Right now it seems impossible, but maybe there is some way we have not thought of to discover what really happened. Time machine maybe?
Talk about "straw man" arguments. Why in the world would someone publish the broken watch thought experiment in a scientific journal?

Cool code, though.
+Emily Maynard Half of one in a billion? Is that a real number or did you just intelligently design it?

Anyways, a billion, or two, is nothing, nothing, to the Universe.
Honestly I didn't finish watching the entire video, there seemed to be a lot of leaps without connections. But overall it felt a lot like basic chaos theory. Which is great, and I can completely understand that POV as I used to be someone who followed that belief as a Wiccan, who knew not much of anything of the Bible or God growing up other than what others around me occasionally said and argued against. That being said, the more I studied everything the harder it became to really stand firm on my own beliefs.

Since then I have come to know the Lord and creation :)

All that aside, the problem with evolutionism (because evolution occurs in nature. but the origin of life is the actual topic.) is the factor of time. The crux of the evolutionism belief is that the earth is billions of years old. Which is great, except if you follow the science, none of the standards of measure of time have been proven to be accurate 100% of the time. They all have factors that affect the accuracy of measure. (carbon dating, argon dating, etc). A standard of measure is a standard, it is universal, thus making it a standard and reliable. It is how science functions, much like math, being a base language. If an inch for me is 10000mm, but and inch for you is 1mm. Then it is not a standard of measure. Until there is a proven standard of measure for time, the actual lifespan of the planet and thus the universe is unknown by science. Without billions of years to work with, evolutionism is irrational. So the foundation of evolutionism is based on a assumption, yet to be proven by science.
+mark amos Actually, continued engagement and argument is exactly what I suggest. Sam Harris has pointed out that people do seem to change their minds, they just don't like to do it in the heat of the moment. Instead, people do sometimes contemplate and change their minds, later, in private. The evidence of the utility of this is revealed by the declining percentage of religious adherents, according to the polls. The fastest growing segment of "religious affiliation" in the surveys, for at least a few decades, is "none of the above", so the conversation may seem futile, but it's not.

Of course, some of the trolls here won't ever change their minds, and they don't really have an interest in the discussion. However, take a look at +Dave Winter 's early post. He changed his mind, at some point in his life, abandoning religion.

It's also useful to engage in these public forums, so that other people see that it's OK to reject religion, and that it's OK to advocate for science.

Your objection, however, is worthy of contemplation. As a species, we have barely begun to study the process of belief formation, and resistance to belief revision. Science is a belief formation system which leads you closer to the truth. Religion is a belief formation system which leads you reliably on a path to the enrichment of the cult leaders. We should study the process of belief revision, so that we can understand how better to persuade people that the quest for knowledge, which has a demonstrated utility culminating thus far in the Internet, iPads, medicine, and all manner of useful things.

The Creationists among us happily consume the fruits of science, all the while working to undermine and abolish it, entirely ignorant of the inevitable repercussions of their potential success. They are parasites on civilization. We ignore them at our peril.

[Edit: removed a redundant "later".]
Talk about a straw man, this video by it's own definitions is comparing dissimilar theories. From the beginning it states that Evolution is not a theory of origin, but intelligent IS a theory of origin.
+mark amos By the way, your suggested approach is championed recently by Sean Faircloth in his recent book Attack of the Theocrats. I concur with the need for political action and education, to combat this anti-science nonsense.

The Attack of the THEOCRATS!
Also keeping in mind, using common language, Evolution[ism] is a "religion" as it is a belief system. Science measures and reports the physical / present world. Belief is used for that which is not before you. As no one on the planet was around 'back in the day', there is no scientific proof nor "knowing". Thus everyone is under a belief system, which is by common language definition a religion.

Rationally speaking, science is the study and explanation of reality. That is what science is. So it always confuses me how scientists have claimed what is true, for something that has not been observed (which is what science is founded on). Its contrary to the definition of their job is it not? (note: i have nothing against thesis / hypothesis, I am merely discussing the label of "this is true")
I still assert that this is not really a public forum; that you are probably preaching to the choir. BTW, I am a member of the choir.

But, maybe your're right: it might be better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
+Emily Maynard wrote: "... I agree that the debating is quite interesting as well."

Actually, I find the contributions by the ignoramuses pro-creationists sad and slightly painful. The reason I posted the original article was exactly to deride creationists; I have no delusions of ever changing their minds - what little minds they have.
+Henrik Jernstedt wrote: "if we just let "them" say whatever "they" want without contradicting (even if we know it leads nowhere) "they"1 usually claim 'Victory' for their side."

Excellent point. The crackpots, if left to their own devices, will just fester, like gangrene. I am morally obliged to object to and deride falsehoods and harmful ideas, words, and acts wherever I see them. Creationists are a group particularly worthy of such objection and derision.
So, you designed a programme to prove that a programme isn't produced by design? Nice work.
+mark amos Until 9/11, I would have said that the argument was futile. I changed my mind. Religion is dangerous, and must be confronted everywhere it confronts us. Ignoring it was the favored strategy of scientists and liberals for decades. The strategy hasn't worked. The US is presently in grave danger, economically, scientifically, academically. Theocrats want to take away your very right to criticize them. I won't stand for that.
+Lori Eldridge wrote: "Evolutionists who believe in the Big Bang forget that everything is steralized due to the extreme heat, thus the need for a Creator to produce life."

How spectacularly arrogant of you to think that whatever meagre science background that you have (yes, I looked at your profile) entitles you to offer an opinion. You could have made your statement in the form of a question more in line with your obvious ignorance. But no, you blunder ahead with the kind of stupid remark I expect from creationist trash. You are a spectacular example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
+Byron Adams your God seems inconsistent. God has revealed himself to a few ancient people - which totally doesn't violate their free will - but refuses to reveal himself to those asking for evidence - because that would somehow violate their free will. Meanwhile, the original revelations are indistinguishable from schizophrenia - so why should we trust those accounts for lack of corroboration? There's a host of evidence that appears to be consistent with the predictions of evolutionary theory, and near nothing consistent with creation - in fact a mess of contradictions with reality and tomes of associated hand waving apologetics. So forgive me if I don't find your argument convincing.
+david hewell wrote: "What's the need of so much energy going into these "proofs"?"

Different people may have different reasons. My reason is that, per Christopher Hitchens, religion poisons everything.
I know this has been addressed earlier in the comments, but I feel as if people are confused because of their desire to make two camps out of this issue. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive! Several people have referenced "yom", the Hebrew word or day, correctly stating its use in Hebrew as sundown to sundown. However, in the events described in the Bible the sun was not created as a light to rule over the earth until the 4th day. It follows then that the traditional concept of a day in Hebrew of sundown to sundown couldn't apply as the earth hadn't been set in motion until the 4th day.

Personally, I don't want to really delve into the biblical issue... I can only imagine God trying to explain the process by which he created everything to Moses whose education and understanding of these things is very different than ours today, and then Moses taking that explanation and recording it in a way that the people of his time would understand it and accept it. That ideas were simplified at each of these steps is obvious, especially when Moses' point would have been an explanation of who created the world rather than an clear explanation of how the world was created. Then add a few thousand years worth of transcription and translation ... Considering all of this, are we really going to quibble over exact word meanings?

I believe that a form of evolution/the big bang is the process by which God created the universe. I don't believe that any group of people, religious or scientific, have all the facts on the process. My belief here is flexible though because God hasn't revealed to me how He did it, and the scientific knowledge currently available is well supported and makes sense. I believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and I believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things. Perhaps someday He will address this issue and until He does I don't understand the fuss.
+Jason Eisner I like that Mona Lisa example.

But there's one feature that a clever creationist might use to try to subvert things: comparing the current generation to the source image as a fitness function. The notion that the source image was 'designed' might suggest to an appropriately mis-educated nutjob that there is a goal state to evolution and that the goal state and conditions for evolution were set there by god.

And creationists are like in-bred pitbulls: tenacious if not smart. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile whether it's warranted or not.

Indeed, the clock algorithm suffers the same "flaw," but there it's just a case of accepting the rules of the game as defined by the creationist and then disproving their argument. In the case of the Mona Lisa, not so much.
+Bryan Elliott - theological question. Which would you rather have, given the choice. Your children, wife, family, friends doing exactly what you told them to do, following your directions without thought or question. Or would you rather they choose to live you, respect you, follow you of their own free will?
+Ray Ng wrote: " seems to me that the fervor of atheist in their belief in evolution actually resembles religion...."

More frickin' arrogance. Has it ever occurred to you that you don't know everything? You very clearly imply - as do so many creationist gits - that it's obvious. (Where "it's" can be substituted for pretty much anything.)

Well, it's not obvious. That's why thousands of scientists have spent their lives improving our understanding of the universe. You know better than them? I fucking doubt it!
i agree with you Emily Maynard
How we all got here is moot. We' re here. Let's make the best of it and just be the best we can be. Arguing about something that can't be proved either way is just plain... entertaining. Keep those interesting opinions flowing. It may evolve into world peace.
+Emily Maynard >Technically, no one can admit that there is no supernatural.
Why? There's no evidence for supernaturality.

>There is also no such thing as an atheist,
People can't not believe in god?

>because they say they don't believe in anything,
That's false right there. Of course we do believe in certain things.
We just don't believe in a supernatural god.

>but they really believe in not believing anything.
With your presupposition wrong, the rest of your argument is wrong, too.

>So that's a belief isn't it?
It's the lack of a belief.

Also, let's try a simple question:
If you believe in intelligent design, how can you explain giraffes?

>It's true. Compared to God, we barely know anything. Our knowledge is like a miniscule dot on a gigantic sheet of white paper that you need a magnifying glass to see the dot with.
If god knows so much, how come there's absolutely no scientific value in the bible?
+Bob Collins wrote: "there are no proofs of spontaneous mutations or specifically protein changes and proteins are the "things" of life."

Wrong. I'm not your teacher and I'm not going to provide you with the citations. Most of them are available via google, so you don't even need to go to a library.
+claire flores wrote: "and evolutionist freaks think people came from monkeys!"

Also wrong. Monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. Go look it up.
+Bob Collins wrote: "you can say all that I say is not true, but do you have counter proof of what I say? I am open to hear honest scientists talk about it...."

Nonsense. The evidence is readily available to anyone. Why should I do your work for you? Do you really think you can learn anything without bothering to do the work involved to learn?
+Filippo Salustri great video ! I did a similar simulation when i was a student ... it helped me a lot in understanding the science behind this "blind" optimum searching algorithm called evolution
+Jason Varner wrote: "Bottom line, we don't know the exact truth of how things happened."

Well, that's a step in the right direction. But then science wins because science can actually make falsifiable predictions. And evolution, in its modern refined form, has withstood that test brilliantly. What does creationism predict? Squat. Therefore real evolution is better than creationism.
+Sylvia Carcich wrote: "That's my number one complaint about evolutionists who are confronted with someone who actually believes in creation, they fail to use scientific arguments and just resort to poking fun, name calling and derogatory remarks."

That's because all the information they need to understand how evolution works is readily available to them, yet they assume that because they don't already know something, it is completely unknown and (usually) unknowable. That kind of willful ignorance deserves derision.
+Keith Wilson I reject the implicit premise that knowledge excludes free will. Its an insane conclusion that can only be reached via apologetics.
+mark amos wrote: "...then what should we do?"

I think the answer is in educating the young. It's obvious that the current religious nutjobs will never give up their fairy tale beliefs. But we can give young people the tools to reason for themselves critically and by the evidence.

The religious right has already figured this out - this is why they're so desperate to get creationism and ID into the classroom. More brainwashing. If they win that battle, then the war will be lost, IMHO.
+Craig Barboza wrote: "Talk about a straw man, this video by it's own definitions is comparing dissimilar theories. From the beginning it states that Evolution is not a theory of origin, but intelligent IS a theory of origin."

I disagree. The creationist argument is that since a watch does not reassemble, then there must be a designer. The watch is used in place of complex things assembling out of simpler things - that's evolution. So the creationist argument is this: since evolution is wrong, there must be a designer.
+Keith Wilson wrote: "So it always confuses me how scientists have claimed what is true, for something that has not been observed...."

Really? Have you ever "observed" gravity? Does the theory of gravity confuse you? Please!
+Emily Maynard wrote: "Technically, no one can admit that there is no supernatural. There is also no such thing as an atheist, because they say they don't believe in anything, but they really believe in not believing anything. So that's a belief isn't it?"

More damned lies.

We can ignore the supernatural because there is no evidence. Anyone who claims the supernatural exists is welcome to demonstrate it. It has never been done in a robust or reliable way. The onus is on the claimant to justify the claim. The default stance - that supernaturalism is bullshit because there's no evidence - requires no justification.

Atheists believe in lots of things. You're a hateful, spiteful, willfully malicious fool.
+Jin Choi Please go educate yourself about evolution. You can start with Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne. Macroevolution is not a problem.
Except for creationists.
And creationists are idiots.
+Filippo Salustri You are going to have a hard time finding an audience when you refer to your opponents as "idiots".
+Keith Wilson Our evolutionary history is inferences that are made by evolutionary theory as applied to archaeological evidence. It's not "claimed as true", but inferred as probable. That new evidence is always consistent with evolutionary theory is indicative of the predictive power of the theory - it appears to be consistent with our shared reality. If evolution wasn't consistently right, it'd have been discarded with "blending" theories of genetics and spontaneous generation ages ago.

"But abiogenesis!" I hear you sputter - actually, I hear you say, "but scientists say life started from non-life" or something equally stupid - "that's spontaneous generation! I've got you now!"

Spontaneous generation, incidentally, is the thought that any source of food can spontaneously generate organisms to feed off of it, with no mechanism supposed. Abiogenesis is something a little different: There is evidence that there could have been no life on earth at some point, and that there is life on earth now. There is also some evidence - but no clear path - that self-catalyzing molecules can arise given conditions that have been present on earth in the past (and in fact, are still present around some volcanic vents in the deep ocean).

The premises of evolutionary theory are that any population of imperfectly self-replicating entities will undergo slight changes from generation to generation, and that those changes that improve survival and replication will tend to propogate within the population. So an abiogenesis theory, to be feasible, just has to demonstrate the production of self-catalyzing molecules in natural conditions. The scientists are exploring a number of avenues, and a couple are emerging as most plausible, but we don't yet know.

One thing we do know is that it wasn't a single event 6,000 years ago. We know that for a fact.
Why do we call it a universe? Doesn't that word in itself mean a single spoken sentence? Uni = one or a single. Verse =a sentence
+Nathan Osman It's difficult not to. You've got people who are blatantly ignorant of a subject talking about it as if they know everything about it. That's something idiots do. Or assholes, if you like. There's really no way to call that sort of behavior out nicely, because it's not a nice kind of behavior.
+Bryan Elliott - pardon? I guess I should have used emotional or personal, instead of theological add my term. My mistake. The question was intended as a personal choice not apologetics
+Alex Tobey No. The literal translation is "everything that rotates as one", per the latin. The "One word" misdefinition is something that english-speaking preachers came up with for the sake of their own legitimacy. I prefer to think of the word as meaning "ALL THE THINGS", but that's because my brain is made up mostly of internet memes.
Josh B
+Michael Edwards
your snail analogy left out one small yet very important detail...

the snail is still a snail.
+Keith Wilson Would I prefer voluntary love to blind obedience? Sure. But the premise I reject means that it's not a choice that God would have to make. Revelation is obviously not considered a violation of free will within biblical mythology, old testament or new. That idea only exists to explain to uppity parishners why God doesn't talk to people anymore.
+Filippo Salustri - gravity? Yes, I have observed gravity everyday of my life. If I drop my phone I am observing gravity at work. I make no claim as to the origin of gravity as I was not present when gravity first began.

Are you claiming to be, or know someone personally, that was present during all the steps of along the system of evolution?
So if these comments went on for a couple billion years then there should be a random code that should evolve into it's own google plus profile and start commenting on stuff too?
+Filippo Salustri , regarding your response to +Emily Maynard . They said the same thing to Columbus about the world being round.

Science is by it's nature working to explain the yet unexplained. Lack of information does not by itself prove something exists or does not exist. Darwin had no knowledge of any of the cellular, microbiological life... But we found out it existed. Correct?
+Bryan Elliott - as I said I don't disagree with things evolving. I disagree with using known faulty measure as a standard of truth. As that is rhetoric not science

Regarding the 6000 years ago. My point exactly, we don't know scientifically when anything happened outside of recorded history.

And I freely concede that even recorded history can be slanted by the authors POV or altered by a third party.
+Alex Tobey see that? That's a straw man. Evolution has a proposed mechanism and media. What you just suggested takes some elements from the theory, mixes in a little incredulity, gets a mess of things wrong, and mocks the simulacrum of an argument you constructed yourself.

That's why we think our opponents are idiots.
+Bryan Elliott - you are correct, God would not have to make the choice. God is not forced to do anything, if he was he would not actually be God.

Humans are not forced to believe either. Choose your own path, and accept the consequences of your choices. Its basic laws of the universe. If I jump, I will fall on this planet. If I dink poison I will die most likely. If I rest I will feel rested probably. Why should existence be any different? The rules of the universe exist, that is just the order of things. Choosing to not believe in air doesn't stop you from needing it, nor does air cease to exist because you stopped believing in it
Right. So why would a consistent, timeless god stop talking to people after being positively chatty in the bible?
Well done... I myself have worked with evolutionary algorithms and it is amazing what you can do with them. I used them to evolve a Lego robot controller to make the robot follow a certain path. This is powerful stuff but the computational time is a bitch.
Yo Filippo, I could care less about one idea winning or losing. My point, which you seem to have a hard time coming to grips with, is that let's seek the truth and not theorize it and claim that this theory is correct. Just call it for what it is. A theory. It is not truth. You can win this argument, since you are so set on winning it, if you explain to me the exact truth of how time began and go right up to this moment.

Science just means trying to understand something around us. It tries hard, but does not come close to knowing. All we really know is that we know very little about the universe and how it really works. Obviously this is a little bit of Socrates, but guess what? It is very close to the truth.

I am only concerned with truth, not beliefs.
A scientific theory is the explanation for a phenomena that best fits the evidence. Evolutionary theory best fits the evidence surrounding the phenomena of evolution. Evolution is an observed phenomena, incidentally; that evolution happens is a fact, not up for debate. Evolutionary theory - that evolution happens as a result of variation via mutation and natural selection by environmental factors - is the body of models that seek to explain that phenomena.
Arighty Bryan, so your answer to life is we evolved from bacteria? Do you believe this to be truth?
I am not debating that things change over time. I am only asking you how life was created and in a bigger picture, how the universe was created. Tell me that answer with complete certainty as if you were telling me that the Earth is round. If you can do this, you have solved a huge question that people have been seeking for a long time. Bryan, what is the answer?

Keep in mind I am also not on the side of creationist. This has no real truth to it either. I just am interested in what really happened. That's it. someone go back in time and let's see the truth of what truly happened.
+Bryan Elliott - The answer to that is not knowable. One could argue people stopped listening, which achieves the same result in the end.

Nor does a consistent timeless God need to validate himself or prove himself to anyone.

And in the spirit of many previous topics, I googled "Problems with radiometic dating and received countless pages. Thus proving nothing about either side.

+Filippo Salustri - Keeping in mind that there are thousands upon thousands of scientists who understand creation and work just as hard discovering the world as evolutionists. Each side as a mountain of data to explain their belief system. Just because someone does not agree with your understanding, doesn't make them less valuable of a human being, nor an idiot. If that were the case, we would all be running around in animal skins still. Argument and discussion has created the modern world as we know it today, questioning and seeking answers instead of bashing beliefs into peoples heads.

And I will completely concede that throughout history many Christians have done just that, forced understanding on people. But so did the Muslims, the Nazi's, the Romans, etc etc etc.
We evolved from something very small. Maybe from DNA, originally.
We don't know yet. Maybe we'll never really find out.
But that gap of knowledge doesn't in any way justify belief in anything supernatural.
+Keith Wilson I don't get it; your logic isn't exactly consistent. If god doesn't have to make the choice between our free will and our knowledge of his existence, what's with all the handwaving around that subject? Why wouldn't god just demonstrate his existence, as he did in the bible to anyone who asked, skeptical or not? It's in his power, ostensibly, and it wouldn't make sense that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would get impatient or frustrated (how can you run out of patience if you're omnipotent and omnibenevolent?). Especially when you have a thousand factions of christians and muslims and jews and catholics and zoroastrians, etc, ad inf, killing each other over questions that, if god exists, he can easily just answer.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist - I don't know if there's a god, but the evidence seems to point towards no - but if I'm wrong, and god does exist, I doubt he's in any way benevolent. Read the bible and look at the world; no way a loving god acts like such a dick. The biblical god is not worthy of anyone's worship.

What seems, to me, to be more likely is that if someone thinks God is talking to them, they're schizophrenic - and before we knew that even happened, we heard out and legitimized and formalized the voices in someone's head. Thus, religion. And until someone can demonstrate the reality of a single supernatural claim, that's my opinion of religion in general.

That said, I have the same respect for the religious I have for anyone else - but keep in mind, I respect people enough to correct them when they're wrong. Believing incorrect things is, in fact, harmful to yourself and everyone around you, even if only a little bit. Yes, I understand that I'm making people feel stupid - but if you don't want to feel stupid, you will learn skepticism.
+Jason Varner I don't have absolute certainty about anything I know; that's a behavior you lose very quickly as you emerge from ignorance. That we evolved from bacteria is the most plausible explanation that the human race presently has to offer.
+Keith Wilson A timeless God doesn't need to do anything. However, as a believer, and as a Christian, you have a responsibility to understand your own reasons for believing and have them ready. If no one finds your reasons valid, doesn't that mean you're a failure as a Christian?
+Keith Wilson
>And in the spirit of many previous topics, I googled "Problems with radiometic dating and received countless pages. Thus proving nothing about either side.
That google search proves nothing. I've picked a random article, it ended with "amen". Enough said, really.
Also, "problems" could refer to specific technical problems that can occur. However, most sites present typical creationist pseudoscience.

>Keeping in mind that there are thousands upon thousands of scientists who understand creation and work just as hard discovering the world as evolutionists. Each side as a mountain of data to explain their belief system.
Except that these aren't scientists and there's no mountain of data on their side.
Alright, you offer me an opinion of what you believe is most likely to have happened, that's fine, but it's not truth. As a result of it not being truth, people will continue to argue one way or ther other, until someone figures out a way to empirically prove something. Think of it as a challenge for yourself. Find out the truth. Don't read about theories. Go out and discover how to know something.

You have your beliefs and I have mine. What I am concerned with is beyond beliefs.
+Bryan Elliott , your post starting with "I dont get it" is a wonderful reply. Thank you!

What I was attempting to communicate was that the placement of the cause and effect was misplaced. Nothing acts on God, God acts on the universe. Thus God is not forced to make a choice, the choice has been given to us to make.

Regarding his actions or perceived lack there of at present. One I can honestly not know fully, I am not God :) That aside, he acted based on the faith of the person asking for signs. (which he still does today), and also in defense of his chosen people the Israelis. One cant argue they have been hated for thousands of years, and many times they have been near extinction, yet miraculously they have never had their candle extinguished.

To your later post, nothing makes me a failure as a Christian. My ability or inability to communicate neither makes nor breaks my faith. Though it proves I am imperfect and sinful ;) Do I understand what I believe, yes. Am I continuing to understand more and more as I study and seek answers? Yes indeed! I don't understand the universe, just as much as the rest of the humans on this planet :)
I do somewhat align with the idea that we might have been created by alien experimentation or by their hands. I don't know this for sure, but it seems possible. If we are able to exist here on Earth, maybe another form of life that is much more understanding than us, created us or got us going as an experiment, or just wanted to spread life in general and have no such idea of what an experiment is.

Who knows for sure.
+Jason Varner I can tell you that the biblical account of creation is simply wrong with reference to what we know about the world; that the evidence does not point to creation in any way; that the only source for intelligent design theory is the bible itself; that of the people who understand the most about the universe (scientists) the rate of atheism is much higher than among the general population.

I mean, you seem to think that your preferred beliefs are as valid and useful as those informed by evidence. I'm not sure why you think this is the case.
Bryan, the Bible is not accurate. I think it is good in a limited way that might explain to some a way to live that might help people get along, but that's it. I don't look to the Bible for truth.
+David Röll - I struggle to see the point of your first paragraph. Obviously evolutionists dont spend time disproving evolution, nor do creationists spend lots of time disproving creation. Of course most of the research done finding problems with this or that is done by those who disagree. Thats the fundamental point of agruing isnt it? Or are you actually saying that people of faith are damaged mentally? unintelligent? incapable of cognitive reasoning? Might I remind you a huge portion of scientific advances has in face been brought about by people of faith, not just those without faith. Faith does not increase, nor limit IQ. They have very little to do with one another.

Regarding the last part of your sentence, I am sorry but that is just angst talking. There are countless respectable brilliant people out there, your personal belief system does not make them less valuable nor less educated. Please be careful with those thoughts, as many atrocities throughout history sprouted from that same thought line.
Migue E
Wish I could +3 or +5 Keith Wilson's comment
+David Röll - I did a quick google. Your comment about scientists not being scientists ...

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Other scientists who believed in God
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
....Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)

Science and God are not mutually exclusive.
That is all meaningless. Believing or not believing in something has nothing to do with truth.

I am sorry, but I have to depart this forum. I was very bored today so it was good to communicate with others. Going to play some magic the gathering.

Guys, keep examining yourself and the truth that is around you. One day we humans may understand more.

+Keith Wilson wrote: "I make no claim as to the origin of gravity as I was not present when gravity first began."

Really? Do you need to have been present? Is not the body of knowledge about gravity sufficient? Do you believe only that which you can directly observe? If so, they what are you doing using a computer, which operates largely on principles that you cannot directly observe?
We can't use our limited understanding to explain a unlimited thing.
+Keith Wilson wrote: "Regarding the 6000 years ago. My point exactly, we don't know scientifically when anything happened outside of recorded history."

So, you're denying palaeontology?
+Keith Wilson wrote: "God is not forced to do anything, if he was he would not actually be God."

Can god force himself to do something?
+Jason Varner wrote: "Just call it for what it is. A theory."

A theory is science means something specific and not the same thing as when it is used in lay language.

And the whole notion of truth is a very slippery area. Which is to say, philosophers have tied themselves up in knots trying to determine what truth is. Do you know something they don't?
+Filippo Salustri - Perhaps I did not type that clearly. As you saw from my posts (cell phone) I accept that gravity exists. So I am unsure why, if I agreed with you, why are you disagreeing with me? Perhaps I was not clear with my stance on the origin of gravity, being separate from accepting gravity. My apologies if that was not clear.

And I am not being coy, I was and am in fact being very literal. You said there is no evidence that the supernatural exists, so therefore it doesn't exist. There was no evidence that the earth was round, so people didn't believe the earth was round... until there was evidence. Science doesn't state without evidence there is no existence, it just states "we don't know *yet*" or "we haven't discovered anything to prove that yet". That is objective science.
+Jason Varner wrote: "I am not debating that things change over time. I am only asking you how life was created and in a bigger picture, how the universe was created."

Then you're in the wrong thread. That's not the subject. This is my thread and my rules apply. Stay on topic, or get lost.

And: "Tell me that answer with complete certainty as if you were telling me that the Earth is round."

Why should I? I'm not your teacher. You have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of knowledge of readily available information on the subject.

Also, what if we don't know just now? Why must you know now what the answer is? History is littered with unscientific ideas that were peddled on the basis of providing an answer that science couldn't answer at the time, only to be rounded destroyed in due course. Gravity, in case you haven't been keeping up, is one of them. What do you think, you can just snap your fingers and scientists around the world will come running to explain things to you? HAH!
Questioning reality is what makes humans so great (and horrible at times)! Imagination, pushing boundaries, not accepting the status quo, thinking for yourself.. are all the traits that created this modern world.
Notice the trend?
These are various forms of the defence of evolution that I have read (excluding the bashing and wanton insults from the host :-) ) : evolution is not a religious tenet, it is not completely understood, it is the most plausible explanation, evolutionary theory is the body of models that seek to explain evolution, scientists are exploring a number of avenues.. .but we don't yet know, new evidence is always consistent with evolutionary theory.
Rational comments are always a pleasure to read.
I know G+ has a huge nerd crowd, but how many people involved in actual biological research make comments peppered with insults at those who may not know as much as they do?
This arrogance due to knowledge by proxy is always amusing.
I've Never heard about smashing a watch and such. What I have heard is, watches don't just create themselves, they have to be designed and built. So, if something like a watch has to have a creator, then why is it science to think that something as complex as a cell "just happens"?
+Filippo Salustri - If by palaeontology you mean studying historical things, no I am not denying it. But much of the details of palaeontology, timelines, assumptions without scientific facts, etc are I do accept because they are not based on scientific facts proven to be accurate.

Can God force himself...? No, again he would not be God if something, even himself, could force its will over him.
That being said, a perfect being is always perfect, thus they never make mistakes and there is no need to be forced :)
+Jason Varner I'm not arguing about whether a belief is valid or not. I'm arguing against people trying to disprove the beliefs of another person without compelling evidence.

+Keith Wilson Faulty logic. I don't need to see the raincloud to be able to determine that, because the grass is wet and there are water droplets on my windshield, that it recently rained. And science is not just about belief (i.e., a hypothesis), but also about knowing, (i.e., confirmed and repeatable experimental results). I know that pure water boils at 100 degrees Celsius and freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. That's not a belief; that's verifiable and reproducible facts

+Bob Bedford Actually, the search for truth is part of making the best we can of our existence. You assume that something is unprovable. Many years ago, there was no way to prove that the Earth orbited the Sun, or that the Earth was a sphere. If we just gave up because we don't currently know how to prove something, then we'd all be living in grass huts eating grub worms.

+Josh B And a bird is still a bird, but there are evolutionary variations within similar species with common ancestors. My analogy was intended to show a very small adaptation, not to show how a simple organism evolves into a complex one.
+Keith Wilson wrote: "Obviously evolutionists dont spend time disproving evolution..."

Actually, trying to disprove evolution is exactly what they do. That is, science is about trying to falsify predictions. Clearly, you understand nothing about science.

And: "Of course most of the research done finding problems with this or that is done by those who disagree."

Disagreement is no grounds for doing research. Evidence that runs counter to a given model is. Research occurs when evidence is sought, when scientific models are validated against the evidence, when predictions are verified or falsified against experiment, and when new models are developed to account for new or better evidence. "Disagreement" is what creationists do.

And: "Or are you actually saying that people of faith are damaged mentally?"

Creationists are deluded. Delusion is a mental illness.

And: "Might I remind you a huge portion of scientific advances has in face been brought about by people of faith, not just those without faith."

Big fucking deal. Lots of science has been done by communists and fascists too. There's no causation there.

And: "Faith does not increase, nor limit IQ. They have very little to do with one another."

Actually there's some reasonable evidence that being born again can cause atrophy of the hippocampus. See
Thanks +John Mahler :) Along those same lines. You cannot know that which preceded something, based on that which is before you. In a universal scale.

Looking at a tree does not explain the entire earth. Looking at positive and negative elements does not explain the universe. Gravity does not explain the beginning nor the end. Looking at human beings today, does not explain where humans came from. We can make up theories and arguments, but we know nothing for certain such that we have to push it on others.
+Michael Edwards - I don't deny science, have not said I do. My point is that while you know it rained (your example) you did not witness (your example) the events that created the rain. Therefore you do not know exactly what causes and affects were present. You merely know that it rained. I was speaking to the question below the question.
+Keith Wilson wrote: "Perhaps I did not type that clearly."

You were very clear in demonstrating your lack of understanding about science. The point is this: stop plugging holes in scientific knowledge with god. It's stupid.
+Filippo Salustri - You do realize that your two statements are contradictions...

Creationists are deluded. Delusion is a mental illness.
You are stating that believing in creation makes one deluded and thus mental illness...

Big fucking deal. Lots of science has been done by communists and fascists too. There's no causation there.
But here you believe that there is no cause and affect to a belief system and science...

Unless you are saying that Creationists were creationists before they were scientists. Though there are countless people other either permutation of that statements as shown throughout history...
+Filippo Salustri - I do apologize for my over generalization of who is doing what. You are correct both sides are working on proving their beliefs and disproving their beliefs, as well as the same for their opponents in the schools of thoughts. My apologies
+Keith Wilson wrote: "Questioning reality is what makes humans so great...."

Actually, no. Reality is what it is. It's pointless to question it. We can, and should, question our perceptions of reality. That's what let humans progress, among other things. That's what's led to the war between science and religion, and that's why science will win. Because religion makes shit up.
+John Mahler wrote: "So, if something like a watch has to have a creator, then why is it science to think that something as complex as a cell "just happens"?"

That's what evolution answers. And it's answer is far better - more robust, making better predictions, and fitting the evidence better - and any other known explanation. And it's immeasurably better than "god did it."
+Keith Wilson Glad we cleared that up. I'm speaking to the fact that, as of this moment, for these two issues, it's not possible to know the nuts & bolts, so to speak. Therefore, dismissing either is illogical. Allowing for multiple possibilities, until there's hard evidence to disprove one, makes the most sense.
+Keith Wilson wrote: "If by palaeontology you mean studying historical things, no I am not denying it. But much of the details of palaeontology, timelines, assumptions without scientific facts, etc are I do accept because they are not based on scientific facts proven to be accurate."

I mean palaeontology. Go look it up. And once you've read a few books, you'll understand just how rock solid that science is. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than creationism? Yes, immeasurably so. To deny the superiority of science over creationism is delusional.

And: "Can God force himself...? No, again he would not be God if something, even himself, could force its will over him."

That would make your god not omnipotent.
There's no need to argue, let evolution to run its course. If we, the society strives in science to offer better living, one way or the other, survival of the fitness will dominate. The ones who believes on something in the stone age, will likely not to get any offsprings,... there you go.
+Filippo Salustri - That is the implied understanding. Life is perceived by each individual independently.

That all being said, based on your last statement. You believe yourself greater than Einstein and the others I cited above? (just to be clear, I do not claim to be greater than any of those men)

You do realize your last statement Because religion makes shit up combined with your earlier statement We can, and should, question our perceptions of reality are also founded on contradiction. As both faith (religion as is belief, not the rituals of) and science are both questioning perception of reality at their core.
+Keith Wilson wrote: "That being said, a perfect being is always perfect, thus they never make mistakes and there is no need to be forced :)"

And there's no need not to be forced either. Your god can do whatever he wants, right? But if he can't force himself to do something, then he can't do whatever he wants. That's a contradiction. And your god then disappears in a puff of logic.
+Keith Wilson wrote: "You are correct both sides are working on proving their beliefs and disproving their beliefs."

Both sides? Which sides? Science and religion?
+Johnson Kin Actually, there is need to argue. All that's needed for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing. Religion poisons everything. It must be stopped.
+Keith Wilson wrote: "That all being said, based on your last statement. You believe yourself greater than Einstein and the others I cited above? (just to be clear, I do not claim to be greater than any of those men)"

What the fuck are you on about now?

And: "You do realize your last statement Because religion makes shit up combined with your earlier statement We can, and should, question our perceptions of reality are also founded on contradiction. As both faith (religion as is belief, not the rituals of) and science are both questioning perception of reality at their core."

No they're not. Science questions reality based on replicable, falsifiable hypothesis. Religion just makes shit up. There's no robustness to religious "knowledge;" there's no predictive ability; there's nothing there.

Faith is for people who can't handle reality. Science is for those who can.
+Filippo Salustri - Regarding "palaeontology" actually I did double check my understanding of the word before posting. :) Maybe you should double check yourself?

That would make your god not omnipotent I see you have a good measure of scientific understanding. But perhaps you should take your own advise on fields outside your personal study? That being said, for something to be all powerful there must not be something more powerful than it, else it would not be omnipotent... It's not something the human brain can fully comprehend. Just like something not having a beginning or an end, it's not possible for the human brain to process that fully as we are ourselves linear.

Science is great, I am a huge computer guy :) It's the "little" things that make evolution so challenging the more and more I have studied into science. Like for example the huge amount of clams and sea creature fossils found next to the dinosaur fossils (implying death at the same time)
+Filippo Salustri
But if he can't force himself to do something, then he can't do whatever he wants. That's a contradiction. And your god then disappears in a puff of logic.

I was referring to being forced against your will, not making a choice and using will to force yourself to do something. (eg. muscles)

Both sides? Which sides? Science and religion?
I believe the conversation context was creation and evolution sides, sorry if I did not make that clear!

Religion poisons everything. It must be stopped.
So you would have silenced Einstein and the others? Or you just believe in mind control like the Nazi's? Do you not believe humans have the right to think however they want? For good or for evil? Do they not have the right to think and exist? People of faith are not sub-human, and feeling that way is a foundation belief that has at times throughout history lead to slavery and genocide... please be careful :)

Again, many scientists have been faith based and their faith is what drove them to seek the answers... So you ridicule the people whos example you follow and whos work you use as a foundation...
+Keith Wilson You're arguments are boringly old. Go read some books. They've been dealt with roundly a thousand times over.

It's clear from your tagline ("Servant of the almighty God of Israel, and his son Jesus Christ. Creator of Rising Above The Darkness") that you've been successfully brainwashed by religion. You're deluded and stunningly ignorant.

I'm done with you.
dude believing in evolution is literally calling yourself scum of the earth, but I am a soldier of God!
I believe in God and the mechanics of evolution (whether not that was the actual process is actually pretty irrelevant, it could've been aliens or robots and who can prove otherwise?) and the whole broken watch argument is nonsense. Firstly, obviously it was just proven that it can happen. Secondly, that's implying there is an end goal, which if you believe in evolution, there isn't one, so your argument is invalid. Yes, if you wanted to recreate this exact universe through random processes it would be extremely unlikely to happen, but if you didn't have to create this exact universe, you would still get stars and planets, life in some form or another (it IS an infinitely big universe, after all). Maybe you'd get sentient cephalopods instead of humans, but still. It proves the point. Worst argument ever.
+Trevor Fenn wrote: "it could've been aliens or robots and who can prove otherwise?"

Ok. If it was, how did the aliens come to be? How did the robots come to be? It's a stupid argument because it just reposes the same problem, one step removed. It solves nothing.

And, about the watch: _"...that's implying there is an end goal, which if you believe in evolution, there isn't one...."

First, it's not a question of believing or not believing in evolution. It's a question of accepting or not accepting the overwhelming evidence. Accepting it is normal; denying it is delusional.

Also, the end goal is necessary for the watch, because its a watch, something artificial. Indeed, it's not an end goal per se but a measure of fitness. In the admittedly contrived problem of the watch, one must admit a consistent fitness function, even though it will be as contrived as the premise. Inconsistency would invalidate the entire exercise. So the fitness of a given organism in the simulation is measured by its ability to tell time. In real evolution, the fitness of an organism is measured in terms of its ability to survive and procreate in a specific environment. Just because the fitness function of the watch simulation is contrived does not mean the fitness function of real evolution is contrived.
The biggest issue with intelligent design (and by some extension, creationism) is that it's posited that because the universe and life is so complex that there has to be a creator.

That being the case, any being capable of creating something so complex must be even more complex which creates the question of "Who created the Creator?" Which then triggers another question of what being is so powerful and complex it could create another being so complex and powerful that it could create our universe and the life contained within.

Which leads to an infinite regression which is pretty much unacceptable as far as any sort of intellectual argument goes.
The Simulation Theory makes more sense than Creationism.
Lol these children now-a-days.. yes, derogatory. So you make jokes like this for? Fun? For what.. to get the arguement going.. quantum mechanics.. general relativity.. cannot explain what we call 'black holes'... singularity is all we can derive from this universe... so, lol when i say this, steven hawking can explain how 13.7 billion years ago over 400,000 years of quantum fluctuations started this marvel we call home.. lets talk abt the higgs boson.. 10 billion dollars and 17 years of exploration and nothing.. fuck the standard model till you put in a 'G' for the only thing that makes sense..
Lol richard dawkins lol... watch expelled then tell me yu feel the same abt him... he makes a complete ass out of himself... he cant believe in god but he can believe aliens created us... schodingers cat.. while inviting the idea of super position, also invites that we are in superposition as to who is posing the experiment on us... are we alive, is this real..
My post seem to have vanished? Maybe I missed it. Let me restate it simply. If I had a site trying to prove intelligent design I would definitely include this video as a proof. He has a DESIGNED watch. He has parts specifically DESIGNED for this clock. The parts work together because they were DESIGNED to do so. Thanks for showing us that even though you don't see it, you do believe in intelligent design!
First off, I agree with Mike Kennedy (I haven't got the time to read all the other posts). Next, a question: Why are we arguing about the origins of life instead of living life? Just something to think about, because no matter how much we argue, whatever is the truth still happened and won't change. God Bless, and have a good night :)
Why are so many creationists fighting against this? Oh because it shows how really stupid you have to be, to be a creationist. It must be horrible when you must fight against ALL evidence to preserve your faith.
+Mike Kennedy You don't understand that the pieces are random and weren't designed to work together. They evolved and eventually formed a time piece. But thanks for showing us that you can apply you ignorance to anything.
+Mike Kennedy You missed the point in many ways, not just those indicated by +Benjamen Meiers.

Most importantly, the watch argument comes from creationists and is intended to argue against evolution, rather than for ID. The simulation was intentionally made to remain constrained by the limits imposed by the creationists. The creationists argue that the watch pieces cannot reassemble into a watch. Yet the simulation shows that this can happen if a watch could do a few simple things.

More importantly, that it's a watch is not important; the point is that complex things can and do arise from simple things. The algorithm could be applied to each piece of the watch too, and eventually you'll still get watch-like things, because the process is independent of the actual nature of the evolved thing.

There is absolutely notion about the simulation shown in that video that supports the crackpottery known as ID.
No Filippo it is you that miss the point. You whole experiment is based on unsound science. Buy a deck of card. Open them, look at the order. We will call that the order need to produce a water molecule when you account for all the subatomic particles. Now shuffle the deck seven times. It will have reached it maximum level of disorder, and no matter how many times you shuffle it it will continue to remain disordered. You could shuffle it for thousand and thousands of years and the results will be the same. Order can not come from disorder. Everything we know about science states this principle of entropy to be true. No amount of bogus science will prove it to be untrue either. Any deck of cards and ten minutes of time destroys all your fancy non-science. The only way order can be introduce is by design. We could shave certain cards so they would shuffle differently, or perhaps come up with an elaborate system of small magnets on the cards so they would not behave randomly and come into some order. But it would all require an intelligence to insert the order. All your work on this is meaningless because you have disregarded the basic laws of thermodynamics and statistics. If you start your experiment with a basic error it doesn't matter how much computer time or how fancy your video is. Wrong is still wrong.
+Filippo Salustri wrote:
"You're kidding, right? You're assuming god exists and then using the assumption to prove the need for a designer. That's both circular reasoning and complete..."
No I'm not trying to prove anything. Just sharing the truth. Reality does not start with us assuming... it just is. Someone tells me a fruit in Taiwan exists. I start with "believing" and after seeing it I can come to "know" it be true.
God is and has revealed Himself down thru the ages. It started with Him (not me assuming). Some hear and believe but then they come to know because He makes Himself known.
+Mike Kennedy , you fail at basic understanding of the law of entropy increase.

1) It only applies to closes systems (which our planet isn't)

2) It only applies to closed system as a whole, you can still have a decrease of entropy in one part of the closed system at the expense of the increasing entropy somewhere else in the system.

We see order coming from disorder all the time - crystals, cells self-assembling into complex organisms, etc etc etc.
+Bryan Elliott God has revealed enough through creation, His word and His people so that we are without excuse (see Romans 1). The problem is with rejecting evidence so that one can continue to live in sin.
+Mike Kennedy There are simple experiments that have been done thousands of times in labs all around the world in the last 20 years that show conclusively how complexity arises in biological systems without any intervention at all. You cannot just claim your god did all this design work without explaining how complexity arises universally. And your claims do nothing to provide that explanation.

Your analogy with playing cards is bogus, because the cards don't interact with one another, changing their composition on exposure with appropriate other "elements." Nor do the cards react on their own - as biochemicals do - to any of the "forces" you exert on them in your laughable experiment.

You could however rewrite the watch algorithm to accommodate ordering cards. You'd need a fitness function - which would in this silly contrived case - a preference for shuffles leading to an ordered deck. The ordered deck corresponds to an organism that is ideally suited to its environment in real evolution. The algorithm will sort the deck.

And finally there's +Oleg Kikin's explanation of why you know diddly squat about entropy.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
+Byron Adams wrote: "God is and has revealed Himself down thru the ages. It started with Him (not me assuming). Some hear and believe but then they come to know because He makes Himself known."

Nonsense. Where's the evidence? There isn't any.

What is truth?
Without getting into scary philosophy, we can start with a dictionary definition: truth is that which is in accordance with reality. How do we perceive reality? Via evidence. No evidence for god. So it's not real. Nor is it true.
+Byron Adams wrote: "God has revealed enough through creation, His word and His people so that we are without excuse (see Romans 1). The problem is with rejecting evidence so that one can continue to live in sin."

What exactly do you mean by "creation"? What we see around us now or the origin of the universe? Or the origin of life on earth?

Actually, it doesn't matter which, there's not any reason in any of those cases to think that god is necessary. There's not one shred of evidence that connects anything in "creation" to god.

Your god's word occurs in the form of bullshit fairy tales in a grossly inaccurate collection authored by a bunch of ignoramuses (compared to modern folk).

You talk about rejecting evidence? What evidence?

What about all the bullshit that religion has offered in the past as evidence that science has shown has nothing to do with god. Simple example: demonic possession is now just schizophrenia. This has gone on as long as science has. Religion and god cannot hold a candle to the explanatory and predictive power of science.
Fillipo--that is the point!!!!! The cards don't interact but matter does!! Matter does in a predictable non random way! It has a design, it has it built in. Just like a magnet pointing north in a compass matter has a design of innate properties! Biochemical do as well due to the blueprint they contain! You are looking at science with a distorted view. Of course if you start with a number of designed components you will see an order arise. Since when hasn't DNA been a blue print for life??
I don't see a post challenging my understanding of entropy. Could it be reposted?
One 'L' and two 'P's, you fucking yahoo.

There is no design. Everything you claim has a design actually has a non-design, scientific explanation, right back to the Big Bang. And scientists who, unlike you, actually give a shit about finding the truth, are working on that too. Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking both have excellent books on that. Try reading them; you might learn something.

"Just like a magnet pointing north in a compass matter has a design of innate properties!"

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! The magnetic properties of magnets were designed?!?! Why do they need to be designed? Go ahead, I need another good laugh. Explain why they need to be designed and no just be as they are because of the natural laws.

" Of course if you start with a number of designed components you will see an order arise."

Bullshit. You didn't even bother reading previous posts. In reference to the watch simulation, one could have reconstructed the simulation to include sub-parts of the parts. Over time, the sub-parts would have eventually formed into parts, just like the parts formed into watches. The algorithm can and does work recursively. That's the whole point of evolution.

And the "blueprint of life" is just a metaphor, you idiot.
+Filippo Salustri this was a very interesting project. By imposing a couple simple rules (survival and reproduction of the fittest, inheritance of traits with variation/mutation, and affinity of the component parts), you did a good job illustrating how a complex system could arise out of randomly mixed parts.
+Mike Kennedy Your understanding of entropy is correct. You are just ignoring that increasing entropy can be overcome by the input of energy. Plants overcome entropy every day by taking energy from sunlight and using it to assemble simple molecules into complex molecules If you are asserting that evolution could not have happened without massive amounts of energy input from the sun, then I'm sure Filippo would be happy to agree to that conclusion.
Clifford-I don't assert that evolution did not happen, just that it was purposeful, not random. And yes life does go upstream against entropy, because it is not a closed system, energy of the right kind and strength can increase the oderedness in a life form such as a plant. But, the order must be present first! The DNA includes the complete blueprint for the entire life cycle. If the DNA was not already ordered nothing would happen. Also why do atheist always get so rude and vulgar when someone makes a point they need to think about for a moment???
+Filippo Salustri Unfortunately, you are arguing against the "god of the gaps" Unless you can explain every detail from the fundamentals of math to the intricacies of the human brain, there will be some gap that people can point at and say "there is the proof of God" when all that has been proven is that you are not omniscient.
Theistic evolution Believing in God and believing in evolution are not necessarily contradictory.
+Mike Kennedy
Why are some atheists rude?
Because you morons deserve it.
Instead of thinking - oh, shit, I can't possibly know all this stuff that scientists have sweated over for centuries so maybe I should (a) learn as much as I can since most of this stuff is freely available on the Internet, (b) show some fucking humility when I offer an idea in an are in which I'm not an expert and (c) show some fucking respect to the real experts - instead of thinking that, you and your creationist yahoo friends come bumbling through making ridiculous, laughable, absolutely moronic claims and have the perverted arrogance to think you might even be right.

What's more, the arguments you lousy creationists pose are the same half-baked, irrational, unfounded vomit over, and over, and over again, as if asking the same stupid question often enough will somehow result in a different answer.

And finally, because religion poisons everything, and I'm sick and tired of seeing all the crap in the world that results from religious bullshit.

That's why.

And there's no fucking "design" in nature because there's no evidence for it. It's all been covered over and over again in hundreds of books. If you can't even be bothered to read then you really are either deluded or stupid. I'm not your teacher. I learned. Now you can go learn too. If you can.
+Keith Wilson
>"Obviously evolutionists dont spend time disproving evolution,"
Except they do. I'm irritated here. You speak about the scientific method but don't know how it works in the firstplace. I see little point in talking about this topic any further unless you're willing to educate yourself.

>"nor do creationists spend lots of time disproving creation."
See, that's the problem. They're not scientists. Their reasoning goes along like this: "I know it's true because it's in the bible. The bible is true because it is the word of god. Why is the bible the word of god? Because it says so in the bible." I hope you manage to see the fallacy in this. Creationist "science" works like this: If reality seems to conflict with written word, reality has to be adjusted. See humans riding dinosaurs (never happened). That's not science. That's idiocy.

>"Or are you actually saying that people of faith are [...] incapable of cognitive reasoning?"
I've just said that.

>"Might I remind you a huge portion of scientific advances has in face been brought about by people of faith, not just those without faith."
Scientific advances have been brought by people who managed to question the world they live in. The core concept of faith is not to question the world. Your faith already tells you how it is supposed to be.

>"I did a quick google. Your comment about scientists not being scientists ..."
>"Albert Einstein (1879-1955) "religion without science is blind."
How about this:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

>"Other scientists who believed in God" [list excluded]
Does this prove anything? Many of them lived in times when you were burned otherwise. You mention Galileo. Irony, right there.
Did they really believe in god? Or did they say so because otherwise, an angry mob of christians would go smash their labs.
There are even a couple of believers in science today. We're humans and can be irrational at times, after all.

>"Science and God are not mutually exclusive.
The god of the bible is a man-made story. Literature. Sure, that's not mutually exclusive with science.
+Filippo Salustri ahh well good link even if it wasn't your video.
+Mike Kennedy If you accept that evolution happens, then it seems there are two different senses of "intelligent design" being discussed. The video is only about the intelligent design theory of the development of life (see 0:50) and not about the fine-tuned universe
The existence of God is fundamentally not a scientific question. The fundamental laws of physics may very well be the way they are because God decided to make it so. Science can not measure or determine that. It is also possible that there are an infinite number of universes with randomly differing fundamentals and that this is the only one that ever spawned life.
+clifford lowe Sure, but which god are you believing in?

Any god in which belief leads to the crap I see happening all around the world just doesn't cut it for me.

If you believe in a god that is entirely separate from science and does not enable harm and falsehood in any way, then fine.

But that's not the god of, say, the Westboro baptist church. That's not the allah of the taliban, or the allah that encourages honour killings. That's not the catholic god whose priests can bugger young boys and be protected by the church. None of that shit - and it is really, truly, terrible shit - is on the books. And every catholic, baptist, muslim, etc. who acquiesces to the atrocities carried out in their god's name is guilty of enabling those acts by not rising up against them.

And, even more, there's parsimony. Adding a belief in god to any reasonable belief system that favours truth over falsehood and well-being over harm is an extraneous belief that contributes nothing. That god just isn't necessary.
+clifford lowe Based on the success of science over the last few centuries, it's a safe bet that we'll eventually - and I suspect quite soon - sort out the big bang. Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have written excellent books on the subject already. We're pushing back the veil of ignorance.

Now, when we do, what then? When we have a nice, rational model that explains how the big bang happened without god. What'll you do then? You'll just go find some other gap to shove you god into. Fine.

But let me remind you of that old saying: insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. How many times will your god be evicted from one gap only to be crammed into a still smaller one? How many times will the religulous have to do this, each time expecting a different result from all the times that came before, before they finally realize they're nuts?
+David Röll Yes, I blocked him around 17:30 yesterday (local time). He was boring, repetitive, and when I saw his profile tagline I nearly threw up.

Sorry; my thread, my rules.
+Filippo Salustri That's quite alright. He messaged me that he is unable to respond. My bad x)
Btw, repetition comes with the territory, does it not.
Yes, repetition comes with the territory, but there's also the law of diminishing returns. If a discussion becomes both stagnant and consumed by only a few posters.... Well, that's when I have to re-prioritize my time and how I manage my threads.
Steve Hawking work is primarily philosophical, not science. He is driven by the need to create a universe where all question are answer and God is unnecessary. The universe came out of nothing. How? Because gravity caused it to happen. Were did the gravity come from if there was no matter? M theory. What is M theory? Well we can't say because it isn't finished yet. Well when it is finished can you tell us were it came from? Real science does not start with a premise of there being a god or not, it just looks at facts and lets the researcher bring them to a conclusion. If science is going to resort to fantasy to prove a point it is no longer science at all. Creating multiple universes in multiple dimensions is science fiction and nothing else

The big bang happened 14 billion years ago(first discovered by an astronomer who was a Catholic Priest). The earth is 4.5 billion years old. What we call life and all of evolution is but a sliver in this time. The existence of the universe is a paradox. Science tell us matter can not be created or destroyed. Thermodynamics tell us the universe can't be a perpetual motion machine, and if it was always here it would have already run down. The universe will one day reach it maximum state of disorder and be cold and completely dead.
+Mike Kennedy About half of what you wrote is either ridiculous or just plain wrong.

I've actually read Hawking's scientific publications; there no doubt that it's science. His books for non-scientists must approach things from a more philosophical angle, because the intended audience wouldn't have a clue about the real science behind it.

Gravity didn't make the universe happen. The current contender has to do with quantum effects.

The recursion you describe (universe/gravity/m-theory/...) is really just the god in the gaps argument. Also old and tired.

The multiverse isn't science fiction; it's a mathematical model that is consistent with the evidence.

Thermodynamics says nothing about the universe, because the scope of thermodynamics depends on cosmological parameters that are only "constant" under certain conditions. Furthermore, statistical thermo is a far better explanation than classical thermo and subsumes classical therm - rather like relativity is better than newtonian dynamics and subsumes newtonian dynamics.

It's stunning how naive you are about science. Your blather makes clear that you consider yourself an expert in these matters. Your arrogance is as staggering as your ignorance.
The mulitverse isn't science fiction?? Anyone can make up a math model. What evidence do you have of there being an other universe? I'm a non scientist? I have a degree in science. What's your IQ? I've been in Mensa so I'm in the top 2% are you? I'm pointing out the some of the basic assumption you are making are not base on science at all.
Multiverse models are used to simulate universes forming, and the simulations produce universes of similar structure etc. to what we've got. Sure, there's plenty of open questions - it's the whole universe after all - but their models beat 'god' hands down, cuz you can't use 'god' to explain how the universe got to where it is now. And it'll be the successful models that will drive experiments and further theorization about the big bang. Meanwhile, your god's worse than useless by enabling hate and suffering, and crushing the inherent curiosity of people.

I'm not making assumptions. I'm reporting assumptions made by scientists. The bone you're picking is with the cumulative wisdom of thousands of scientists who've spent their lives working on this problem. Again, your arrogance is spectacular.

I've got a phd in mechanical engineering, been teaching and researching engineering stuff for more than 20 yrs. Been all over the world at research conferences.

I was in Mensa for 25 yrs but got bored of it and let my membership lapse cuz it was full of brainiacs who thought they were entitled to special consideration by society without earning it.

And my dick's bigger than yours too.
Good effort, but its no better than generating a Shakespear novel from a bunch of monkeys sitting on the keyboard, and then whatever they write is filtered through a set of rules to first form words, then sentences and so on. Key to ponder here is that evolution is said to have designed the rules with different objective functions from a set of simple rules and simpler objective functions, and then the ability from N chromosome organism to evolve into N+m or into N-m chromosome organism such that reproduction is not effected.
Some guy whose name I can't read, wrote: _"evolution is said to have designed...."

Stop right there. Evolution doesn't "design." Design requires intent. There is no intent in evolution. There are no "objective functions" in evolution. There is no hierarchical composition in evolution. And the ability to alter the length of a genome is well-studied and explained - if you'd bother to read the literature.
Just gonna throw this out there: your weakness is your inability to tolerate the belief of others. If you're a creationist; let the evolutionists believe what they want! If you're an evolutionist let the creationist believe what they want! If you believe in a hybrid version of creationisy evolutionism or whatnot then let others believe what they want.

Fact is, nobody on here appears to be TOLERANT of others and their beliefs. And let's face it, if you're not gonna be mature and tolerant of others then font expect others to listen to you.
Also, DONT force your beliefs on others, its a free world for a reason.
+Mo ZedEl So someone else believes that it's okay to stone a woman to death because she showed her face in public, and I'm supposed to accept that their beliefs are in any way moral, justifiable, rational, or acceptable?
+Joseline Rosario Rosa I think I understand what you wrote.  However, please consider that not everyone can read Spanish.  As a form of respect to others, please write in english, please write in proper case (no ALL CAPS), and please provide proof or evidence for your claims.

If you don't, I will block you.
Add a comment...