Simple to Complex - Reproduction

But we come from complex.So it's complex -> simple-> complex, It's easy if you have the information. What we don't believe - is that random mutation can gives us hearts, lungs and systems. I.e The information.But also - if you have to put in you have to put out, and how can all the exact mutations needed, come about? Don't tell me, chance right?Lam - you assume the present is the key to the past. But in Genesis, they lived for nearly a thousand years. So this is why your example is one of theoretical endeavour, add uniformitarianism. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-16-2004 06:55 PM

Humans. My point was in reference to this quote. I agree that in the present organisms have shorter lifespans. But vast crocs have been found in the fossils, and vast whitesharks etc. These critters lived longer as they were bigger and didn't stop growing.So you can see how your quote incorporates the present being the key to the past.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-16-2004 07:11 PM

You misunderstand;Complex (male and female) -> then Dan's 9 months. Show me a pregnancy that requires no male and female, and no priori information whatsoever. Otherwise, this is far from ex nihilo, doc. Fact is that many, many fossils are found - of bigger organisms - they just don't voice it because evolutionists are looking for evolutionistic evidence.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-17-2004 08:16 AM

I strongly disagree that we were not planned, and that we "just happened". THIS is why you don't understand, and therefore say; You see, - this is an off-topic attempt to attack the persons rather than the argument, and has nothing to do with the topic.I know quite a bit about evolution - what I don't know, is why I should be expected to believe it, as that wouldn't effect it's truth anyway.Now even the simple start of reproduction is anything but simple to complex, it is not simple. Meiosis is an exacting process of intent. Diploid to haploid.Furthermore, this is not smoke Jar - it is fact. FACT is that the information required to reproduce - is already available, that something you call simple, can go to complex. This is because the information is already there, YET I still say it's not simple.What hasn't been demonstrated, is that there is any simplicity. Dan says there is - I expect that's a fair position. I also expect that the burden of proof is on him, to show how simple the process is. But imo, no life is simple when looked at closely.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-17-2004 10:23 AMThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-17-2004 10:24 AM

Exactly. All the evidence you look at is atheist. You support atheists. I won't judge you - but blimey Jar - you seem to be heavily in favour of atheism.But there is evidence of purpose, and you should atleast read those lengthy posts I made, that prove this, in my Hypothesis of consciousness. I don't want to go into an off-topic debate about how you only accept evidence for evolution and an unplanned and Godless creation. But what evidence is there for this? --> ONLY EVOLUTIONISTS suggest there being no plan to creation - but there is no evidence of that - because you've now stepped out of science, and into the realm of the opinionated. The intelligent posters, will know exactly what I mean by this. You will know what I mean by this.Evolution doesn't suggest "no plan" - yet here are evolutionists telling me there isn't one. Which is it? You can't have both.

Dan - you said we say that it's from simple to complex. Who's really strawmanning?Where exactly did I say that?

Actually Quetzal - it was his claim that we are unplanned. ANd I responded to it. But give me some credit - I'm not so dumb that I'm going to defend a position someone is teling me I'm in. I've claimed nothing - I disagreed with the claim. And you know that because I happen to know how brainy you are. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-17-2004 10:45 AM

So evolution says there was no plan, unlike the biblical account, and therefore suggest God is wrong, and implies no God?Thanks - that's what I've been saying all along.

Yes. We didn't.I've shown how we start out with complex DNA information from our parents.A complex cell to an even more complex organism without information, is a different matter.So "process" or "starting out", which ever one, I still say tis complex.

Q, you misunderstand - he made a claim that evolution says we are unplanned. I disagreed.I'm not saying I haven't made any other assertions.

Quetzal - ofcourse I respect you. I don't know why you would think otherwise. I will shortly explain my change to creationism in a new topic..a lot of people have misunderstood, and over-concluded the information I provided.If I have to back up my assertions - that's fair enough. But since I didn't make a claim - it would be silly for me to go to other threads and back up every little belief or opinion I have, yet I still read your link post.

I suspect that this is off-topic though Quetzal. I'd like to answer your concerns, but the truth is that if the truth is told as not the truth and untruth is told as truth as truth then the truth isn't the truth really. This is why the evolution theory - imo, might be scientific but it's post-hoc, or past tense. Why should I believe it when I can believe God?

Is better than inhaling it.Don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't drink.

Q, I was trying to end our off-topic discussion. Someone made a claim - not me. I don't see why I have to go and defend a position I wasn't taking. I simply disagreed with someone's claim. I haven't time to debate an issue I didn't intend to debate.Maybe you'd have me defend every little belief and disagreement I have, but I wouldn't expect you to.Meanwhile, Dan asks about a simple sperm - with complicated DNA information in it - and a purposeful intent of reaching the egg, which is clearly a consciously caused system. If it were random - I'd expect that it wouldn't have any intention. If a single celled organism has information to produce a single celled organism then that might be simpler than a complex sperm and egg, with specific functions, and DNA information for meiosis, thus becoming a multiple organed and complex organism.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-18-2004 03:06 PM

If every opinion and/or belief had to be defended in a thread for each, then we would have thousands of threads for one person.Since I didn't make a claim, then I am not obliged to defend a position I have not claimed. I merely disagreed with the claim made. It's not bull, it's fact.Your agressive overtones are unwarranted.I do understand thoug - you see me as a new fresh meat pertaining to creationism, and want a slab of my ass on some other turf, where I can be forced into a position I haven't claimed openly.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-18-2004 05:14 PM