Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

Since this is getting too far off topic for this thread why don't you go to:
Message 27I have restarted that topic with some questions for you.

We talked about definitions before. What is the difference between a colony and an organism?The step between unicellular and multicellular is made. Now what other steps do you need to arrive at "organism"? You'll find that once you define the difference there are a number of simple, small stpes between them. Why is it "interesting"? Creationists insist that the evolutionary porcess can not produce certain outcomes. A simulation runs exactly the evolutionary process and produces those outcomes.

Well, if you mean the origin of life, then it is hardly biology is it? It is chemistry up to the point that you have something alive.There are, of course, people working on this problem. I don't know if they call themselves biologists, chemists or abiogenicists. Who cares it is working in an area that doesn't fall into a nice little cubby hole.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-18-2004 12:17 PM

You are a physicist are you?According to you? So? Can you explain how the possibility of getting information out of a black hole confirms the 1st law?Then once we have established that the 1st law is safe (I didn't think there was any doubt of that). So what?

It seems that the next thing you would do would be to list a few of them. Why stop now?

Can we all agree not to bite on this. This one is sooooo far out of it that nothing said will make a dent anyway. You just know where this will all go.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-03-2004 07:09 PM

Yes, that makes sense at this point. However, what you are doing is saying that there is something that doesn't have a firm natural explanation for it and therefore you want to put God in as the answer.This is called "God-of-the-gaps" (gotg). God is the answer where there is a gap in knowledge.So far it has worked out to be a bad idea. The gaps keep getting closed. This one might be too.

No, it's not actually. In the case of the missing link a lot of the chain is there and we can see that there is a pattern. That, after all, is the only way that you can tell a link is missing.In your case, the definition of what is missing is specicfically unobservable. Only the natural is observable and God is specifically supernatural. There are no other links there so you can tell where to look or what you are looking for.