I wish that gender was not an issue in this world that we live in, which by the way 50% of 6.5 billion are females. We need to draw all the brain power we can get as we move forward into the future.
RBC

Cher,

Your argument doesn't work, because you're not addressing the concept of the information that's contained in the DNA code, and information theory in general. DNA of a living organism isn't made up of just any [random] combination of the 4 bases A, T, G & C. Genes contain information which is represented by particular sequences of the base letters, similar to how computer programs contain information represented by 1's and 0's. The bits of a functional computer program are not random. How many 3GB computer programs are there that would be functional? I agree with you that that number is very large. However, I think it is smaller by many orders of magnitude than the total number of possible combinations of a 3GB string of 1's and 0's.

Asked another way, how may novels could be written? Clearly a very large number. But it's still a much smaller number than the total number of novel-sized strings of random letters that could be arranged randomly. The difference is information content.

Hubert Yockey, an information theory professor, and apparently an agnostic (see pg. 291 of "Information Theory and Molecular Biology"), calculated the odds of a single gene coming together in a functional (viable) way as 10^70, assuming all of the letters to build the gene were present (and you can't cheat by saying 1/2 of a double-helix strand already exists, because the same information content is present on that half-strand as well). This isn't a calculation of any one particular gene coming together, but rather an estimation of that much information self-assembling. Considering that there are only 10^18 seconds in a universe that is 13.5 billion years old, the universe would have to try about 10^50 different combinations every second for the entire life of the universe, just to get the information content of one gene self-assembling by chance. But it's far worse than that, since the window of life's origin is less than 100,000 million years (you have to have the elements available to make the letters A, G, T & C, in the first place, which requires about 10 billion years of star formation and supernovae explosions to get the heavier elements, and you have to start after a suitable rocky planet like earth cools off enough). Also, it's worse still because the simplest possible organism is estimated at 260 genes, and we have about 500 (if I'm remembering the numbers correctly... I'm an engineer, not a microbiologist). So just at the right time in our universe, about 10 to 11 billion years ago, life and the incredible amount of information it represents relatively suddenly sprang-up.

These calculations are not a proof of intelligent design, of course, but I hope they make the case that intelligent design is not unreasonable. Lest you be a "statistics debunker." :)

Correction: I said " So just at the right time in our universe, about 10 to 11 billion years ago, life and the incredible amount of information it represents relatively suddenly sprang-up" but it's really only 3.5 to 4 billion years ago (10 to 11 billion years after the big bang).

Gerhard,

For the sake of argument, I'll give you the organic molecules (the letters), the double helix, and even the cellular membranes and other machinery necessary for life (the hardware). What I won't give you is the information content in the DNA (the software). There's no reason why particular information like words would come together by themselves, at least from a chemical standpoint. The letters in DNA, the A, T, G, and C, can take any position in the DNA molecule with equal ease. There is no chemical propensity for any particular arrangement of these letters. That's what makes it a good medium for information... just like a hard drive doesn't have a propensity to store 1's more than 0's, or a location on a piece of paper has any greater propensity to accept only vowels than consonants from a typewriter (or alternating vowels or consonants, or whatever). Each next letter in the DNA is independent of the last, by necessity I would think.

What you are trying to argue is akin to this: that my hard drive has a propensity to build the Microsoft Word application, by random mutation of storage locations, over time, even though at any given location on the drive I can put a 1 or a 0 with equal effort. There's nothing about the hard drive itself that compels the data to "self arrange" in ways that over time will build a viable program, or self-assemble information.

Further, it takes a lot of information to make something that is viable and reproduces, like a single cell bacterium. There's no reason to expect that half of a bacterium that self-assembled somehow would stick around long enough for the rest of it to self assemble. If that were true, corpses wouldn't rot. Even if I gave you half of the information in the DNA, the cell wouldn't be viable, wouldn't be able to replicate or metabolize or shed waste or do any of the things that living things do. What do you call something like that? Dead. You need the whole set of information to carry-out the processes of life and produce offspring. Usually when something is wrong in your DNA they call it a genetic disease, but what you're saying is that genetic diseases should somehow "self correct."

I don't buy the argument that "processes are conserved" at all. That flies in the face of experience, scientific observation, and statistics. The only way that happens to a level where you get a significant amount of information is if an intelligence is directing the process (like in the Miller-Urey experiments where they carefully controlled the process of assembling amino acids from a primordial soup... that, it turns out, didn't even exist on early earth, but that's another topic).

The ancient Greeks realized (long before Christianity - God has nothing to do with it) that if a process is directed it is no longer random. So forget the "G" word and just talk natural and nature.

Two bike mechanics, the wright brother's looked in the sky, and they noticed how birds flew. They recognized the Bernouli equation (that one has a longer surface on the top than the bottom and this generates lift), and noticed the wing warping characteristics of birds in flight to develop the control system. They created a wind tunnel to test their designs.

So their design of flight - the mechanics and principles came from natural design. Design found in nature. Design indeed exists in nature, nature has design QED (unless you prefer driving cross country).

It is a matter of intelligence to put together machinery. For instance, a machine has input, process and output where output is different from input. Arguably the most simple machine in biology is the Ca or Na atom which receives a photon and kicks out an electron.... But on a subatomic scale, that is a wonderously complex process.

Getting allot more complicated, we hook that Ca or Na atom in some sort of long chain molecule that is wrapped to form something akin to a wire where voltage can be conducted, and transmit the photon to some mechanism that takes that information and does something. In higher forms of life, we have multiplexed, discriminated and amplified signals. For example, an eye spot would be the simpler form but a photoreceptor in a worm or trilobite has to have 100,000 long chained molecules acting as photodiodes with all sorts of wonderously efficient and elegantly designed (in a natural sense) mechanisms all encoded, maintained, constructed, organized and energized within a single cell.

Intelligence flows from the photon to the neural network through a series of machines, mechanisms, electrodynamic entities which must conserve charge, impedence match etc..... to a neural network that receives that intelligence (a photon) and does something with it - move, change direction, or read a sentence on a computer screen.

So intelligence flows in nature. Design exists in nature, intelligence exists in nature. Intelligent design exists in nature because - even with Darwinian thinking - organisms make life/death choices based on information flow and the design is determined by preference. QED.

If you want to ask "why" seek "God" or philosophy - if you want to ask "how" study the how's but don't deny the reality of those "hows" when they don't fit nicely in theocratic or philosophical boxes. Recognizing intelligence and design in nature is stark realism. Its historic fact, its reality.

Also the set of sentences possible that are intelligible is infinitismal compared to the number that are - though both sets are infinite. THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED DIVERGENT SERIES - and the number of things that do "work" is small compared to the number of things that do not work. So I have to get back to work!

My belief is based on facts. I don't formulate beliefs based on emotion, philosophy or preconceptions any more than any other scientifically minded person should. And I am not alone, plenty of other very hard nosed people have.

It is not nonsense to count the number of amino acids, to look at the number of proteins (the letters and the sentences) and compute the beyond astronomical probabilities associated with formulating those observed through any random or psuedo random process.

Its science. Its also scientific to follow laws of statistics (entropy), chemistry, physics, electrodynamics etc.... in formulation of reality. A cell is infinitely more mechanically, chemically, logically, electrodynamically advanced than any machine or robot or set of machines and robots man has ever produced. If we don't have the capability to construct something as "simple" as a cell, where do "scientists" get off explaining "origin" of species?

Hard scientists like James Clerc Maxwell have come to opposite conclusions (than Darwinists) and did so through logic, experience, computation and thorough investigation.

Don't be afraid of crunching some numbers - be afraid of being afraid to.

It is up to people who propose Darwinian statistical and psuedo statistical processes to show the mechanisms with which known organizational and informational entropic statistical tendancies of open systems are overcome. Failing that, it is worth considering the possibility - even the probability - that on some level, the universe has in it an intrinsic intelligence simple and compound. According to Darwin, William Paley was his best teacher - maybe he was too good.

PS - Nature is full of designs, why do you think the US military is now investigating bird flight for design of advanced aircraft?

You seek design where you find it.

It exists in nature, your thesis that it does not is disproven by known and knowable engineering that has in fact used natural design for human purposes. A design is a balance of forces and a use of them. Genetics provides a powerful building block mechanism to create wonderful designs real engineers in the real world mimic all the time - especially in flight.

People in other sciences aren't familiar with this - sorry, should have provided it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
Its a very useful tool

I don't have to prove that the universe is planned in advance to prove it is full of designs. I only have to prove that engineers and scientists use a design one time to prove that it has at least one design. It in fact has many designs. I would also argue, they arise naturally - especially naturally!

Your assumption that designs must arise from a planned universe imply that nature cannot design? But if it cannot design, how does your neural network brain work? Naturally of course! It is mechanism, it balances forces charges etc... it is a design - one we mimic (neural networks) to do sophisticated things - like flush toilets at airports without using hands.

Saying nature doesn't design is illogical because we use designs from nature - and are ourselves natural. But if we are not natural, what are we?

Nature certainly has plans - what do you think DNA is doing?

The web is a lousy place for a definietion. I was a design engineer for 20 years - won the American Nuclear Society National "DESIGN" Competition - I think I know what a design is! Designs exist in nature, we use them all the time.

And DNA and Genetics has plenty of plans - DNA is a blueprint. You don't think fairies created you do you - two cells, and millions later....

Go to Frank Loyd Wright's falling water, and see how he used ideas from sea shells to create a corrigated concrete patio cantilever leading from the main house to the guest house. Where did the design come from? Nature.

Or Thomas Jefferson's design of serpentine walls - which form the best wall structures - again, nature's design.

Or beehives......

Our minds pick up on our natural surroundings and we mimic and use those things we see in our designs - which are constructions that work.

I don't have to provide proof that nature is planned to say it has plans. Nor do I have to say it is designs for it to have designs. - Wow - you sound like a Theist!!!! Maybe your real hangup is bad theology?

Nature contains plans - nature contains designs. Heck ants and chimps "plan" attacks.... do they devise and design. Why shouldnt' they? The are ORGANISMS and are hence organized.

However, if you want proof nature is planned, read Mark Chapter 8 and look up the definition of "Visual Agnosia" - you will find that the man who saw trees walking was a textbook case - the first in fact.

Or if you want, do a detailed study on the "Land of Bashan" and specifically the Roman Occupation and use of men of Bashan (tall spearmen) on crucifixions, and read the four Gospel's crucifixion accounts and read the 29th Psalm that begins "My God, My God, why hast thou foresaken me?"

And treat the text as something worthy of real poetic, deep and thoughtful analysis and study - spend time understanding it deeply - read it with ancient Church Saints who weren't a bunch of superstitious morons - but rather very learned especially in philosophy and logic. They weren't fools. Don't presume your generation is so advanced!

DNA is molecular Word - pattern - plan!

Nature contains plans, designs, and intelligence. That is undeniable fact. If you say all things are natural, we are natural, and then 747's are also natural.

I never asserted where designs came from except nature - I asserted what it in fact contains which is the purview of science - "What" - and I won awards in "DESIGN" before you were probably born!

If you want more detailed information, say a quiet prayer, and read the references provided.

For a scientific plan - consider that Einstein got his philosophy of space-time and the non-Euclidean Geometry and tensor mathematics from Bernhard Riemann. Riemann was a lover - a prayer of the Psalms (he learned to read using the Psalms). The first Psalm we Christians are to pray in the morning as commanded by St. Peter Himself is Psalm 90 - "a thousand years in thy sight are as a watch in the night..." - speaking of a general relativity of time (true Prayer is entering a time above time). In fact we are commanded by Peter to remember the relative nature of time first in II Peter!

Eddington confirmed Einstein's general relativity prediction using a solar eclipse and noting the starlight/ star position shift behind it. If the moon were slightly larger or smaller, or slightly closer or further away - such an experiment would not have worked. The moon is right sized for Corona investigations and observations of the shift in starlight caused by the curvature of space-time.

God is rather scientific - or we are incredibly lucky! Maybe that is why so many stupid Physicists are theistic?

Hey - I am not arguing a designer - you are - I came here to argue science - not your religion.

You said "DNA is an incredibly simple nucleic acid made up of sugars, phosphates, nitrogenous bases and five-carbon sugars" - Really????

Watson and Crick won a Nobel for cracking DNA's basic structure! And Pauling fumbled on the hydrogen bonding (which he himself discovered) missing out on a potential 5th (?) Nobel. Super computers spent years analyzing genomes and still do -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome

DNA is used to identify individuals in court. Its a molecular blueprint for the body .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

"The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules."

The DNA is where the genome is encoded.

It contains the molecular pattern (LOGOS - using ancient Greek terminology - WORD - pattern) by which your made - literally knit protein by protein in the mother's womb and onward.

============================================================
But if you want me to "prove" the Universe is designed, read the earilier references.

Not a calculation, not a simulation without some form of directed intelligent input.

Every machine we have on the planet proves it - explain how one gets photodiodes for worms in cells from gradual statistical change processes!

You can't because it can't .

If you were honest, you'd show how 20 amino acids can be arranged through population based dynamics to produce some sort of beneificial change - you can't - certainly not with randomness!

Even the peppered moths and the beaks turns out to be genetic machinery. And the more machinery, the less likely any random process is involved. You don't get cars by kicking about metals - you construct them - genetics is constructing the constructors and designing the adaptation - IN FACT microarray studies are showing changes in genetici expression INTRA-generationally (and that has to be the case for observed rapid speciation).

And when the ID guys do real calculations with Fermi problems - your only come back is insults - you can't show where the calculations are astray. Why?

The only reason I can come up with is that it is your fundamental religion - a sort of pschyological fanaticism that refuses to put pencil to paper and do simple math. Your afraid - and frankly you have reason to be. Your hiding behind an increasingly vanishing fig leaf.

Cells are infinitely more sophisticated machines than anything man has devised. They are not incompetent engineering - sorry, read your sentence too fast.

What does a cell do - two of them form you and me - they have all the information for the super computer brains, the automated repair mechanisms, the sophisticated light gathering devices. Take a hard nosed mechanistic scientific view of life - and consider who much information is packed in DNA.

Look at single celled creatures (and they are creatures) - from a force, charge, chemistry, information packing point of view, they are far and away the most sophisticated machines on the planet. They are far higher intelligence than we have yet constructed - even if we had talking computers - those computers would not be as sophisticated because they cannot self replicate, or form a planet from dust into a living world with a balanced ecosystem.

Cher and Gerhard,

Still... you haven't addressed the main issue Andy and I have made. You have to seriously address the information content problem. There is 3GB worth of information in every cell in your body. Don't give us (again) the excuse that it's only one of an incalculable number of possible sequences... I asked you, Cher, for your wildest optimistic answer for the values of the two divergent series, and you didn't respond. But it can't be good news for you, because the genetic alphabet can result in gibberish just as easily as the English alphabet can. There are rules to both English grammar and the genetic code. I don't see why the analogy between the genetic language and any other language (English, binary, etc.) is flawed. Help me see why.

Gerhard: "In every post your assertions for intelligence have one central premise; if man hasn't created it, then it must be created by a super intelligence greater than man."

So what? Aren't you doing the same thing in reverse? If man hasn't created it, certainly God hasn't either?

Gerhard: "Once again your argument regarding probabilities begs the question. Like so many others you presume that all events are equally likely (and therefore can be treated randomly), in addition you also presume that they must all occur simultaneously in a singular event of creation. Neither is true."

But that's not "begging the question" (circular reasoning). In the genetic code, all combinations are equally likely, because the genetic letters do not have a propensity to self-arrange in any particularly order (other than their pairs, of course, but I'm talking about one side of the strand which has the same information content as the other side). Or are you saying that the genetic code for a liver, for some as-yet-unknown reason, has a propensity to self-assemble? Maybe that's the case, but it's not circular reasoning to argue against that... it could just be wrong, but not circular.

Also, entropy really works... how would a non-reproducing DNA fragment survive in what must be the furious pace of nature trying different combinations of genetic sequences to find one that works? What magic force is it that keeps half of a potentially-working DNA strand around until the rest of it can be assembled? Even assuming you're correct, that the assembly of life-giving code can happen over some long period of time, why should we assume that the forcing bringing the rest of the DNA together don't also work to tear the non-working as-yet-unfinished DNA strand apart? After all, if you're busy trying DNA combinations, you need those handy raw materials.

And here's another staggering problem... information density. How many years have humans endeavored to increase information density? In the 50's and 60's we had computer punch cards. I remember our first computer, the Apple II, had a cassette tape drive. Then we went to 5.25" floppies. Then decent hard drives and 3.5" disks. Then CDs. Meanwhile information density in memory chips was getting better and better. This whole process has taken, say, 60 years of intense effort from intelligently-directed human beings... engineers at IBM, Toshiba, Motorola, TI, etc. And guess what we have to show for it? The information density in a single cell is 12 trillion times (12,000,000,000,000) greater than our best chips (see "The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry" by Fazale Rana). How does that kind of information density just happen without intelligence? Seems to me the burden of proof on this one is in your court, since I can show you how it happens with intelligence (I just did... many man-hours of engineering). If you've got another way, do tell.

Now it may be that some natural process will be discovered that somehow accounts for what appears to be amazingly intelligent design. Or, it may be that some transcendent God created us all, all the animals, the plants, the very conditions of the planet and solar system and galaxy that we live in. Either way, it's faith. You have to admit that, because neither you nor we can "prove" our positions 100%. We can show evidences, but there's not absolute proof.

As Einstein said, "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

You might say it's too convenient that God has set-up the universe in a way that requires faith, where His existence cannot be 100% proven. Okay, I'll grant you that. But the best selling book in the history of man, purportedly written through men by the Spirit of God, has an answer for that. It's God's purpose in this universe to deal with the problem of evil and free will. If we were all robots programmed to love God, then we wouldn't have the free will that produces true love. A convenient answer? Sure it is! But that doesn't make it false.

I gather you've each chosen the side of "no miracles," and that's your choice to make. And while the expected value of your choice works heavily against you (that is, if you're wrong then you've got infinitely more to lose than we do if we're wrong), I agree that's not a compelling reason, by itself, for you to change your mind. But I hope that it's enough to at least convince you to some day take an open-minded look at intelligent design as at least a possibility. Like former atheist Anthony Flew, perhaps you'll come to recognize the evidence for intelligent design in what appears to be a most miraculous universe.

DVDs polarize light in one wavelength. Shrimp eyes apparently polarize it evenly in all directions and are being studied for that reason - to improve data storage (tremendously). Pretty sophisticated given any set of random processes - and shrimp - rather low on the scale of creatures. But they have too - they are seeing in a much darker and differential environment.

Engineers do have a practical understanding of science - and they have a practical knowledge for how complex things can indeed be.

Darwin cringed at the complexity of the eye he saw, but noted the worm eye was "simple."

Had he an electron scanning microscope and knowledge of function - whether worms or shrimp - he would have cringed far, far more - he did not have a good feeling or understanding of just how complex machinery has to be to work - and how complex ancient life forms eyes (trilobites being very sophisticated) were because the planet was once very dark.
================================
"I didn’t hear any one offer proof. " - Read Mark Chapter 8 and look up Visual Agnosia. Very interesting - the first documented case of VA from a person born blind and having his sight restored.

But hey - if you aren't willing to treat the subject with scholarly investigation, attention to detail and respect - you'll never gain anything from it.

Andy, I'm willing to treat the subject with scholarly investigation, attention to detail and respect. What was it you thought that I was expecting to gain from it?

The story of Mark didn't begin in chapter 8, or end there, and Visual Agnosia is not in dispute, at least not in this message.

Where science falls short is the failure to explain or even to attempt an explanation of how a big bang or other creation could occur, what preceded it, and how the entropy was made low in the past so it can be increasing now. Surely for evolution theories these things are the most fundamental questions.

Engineering falls short too because it fails to call science to account for the origin of low entropy.

So I believe you put up a good fight, but left out the most convincing evidence.

Education in science and engineering leaves out some of the most important knowledge, because it impacts on our understanding of energy supplies and how we use energy. The missing science has been available for a long time, but is difficult to find and not politically correct to teach (except in blog space). You only find it here.

It takes a life time of reading original works from pioneers in science like Schrödinger and Feynman to discover the missing parts and understand why they are left out of college studies. What we get from Feynman and Schrödinger is the science of how time can go backward or forward, and how entropy can decrease or increase. We also get many more dimensions than the ones we see, and calculation rules about how subatomic particles travel into all of those other times and spaces before they return to our world.

The message I would like to deliver is that the boundaries on this discussion are a lot larger than the comments are embracing, and the science that describes the larger boundaries is decades old.

I’m of the opinion that there were other universes before ours, and more universes existing at this time beyond our view. Also I expect there are other living worlds now and were others in the past in other universes. So the space time my statistics is large enough to contain any of the probability arguments.

Before Mark chapter 8, there was Ezekiel Chapter 1. From Ezekiel we get a report of two flying machines made of bright shiny metal landing in a farming community of illiterate manual labor, on the water front at Nippur, Iraq on 31 July 593 BC.

One of the flying machines went down in flames with a loud rumbling noise, a cloud of smoke, and an electrical fire in the high voltage engine. The other flying machine came to the rescue commanded by someone who said he was God. Ezekiel was under age for the job he was doing. His education was cut short 10 years by war, and he didn’t read or write very well. So I ask you, is it likely that Ezekiel saw flying machines, or did he just imagine it.

The part of the science that is not taught in college is necessary to understand the workings of the flying machine that went down in flames. For the other flying machine Ezekiel didn’t give enough information to describe the technology.

A lot of claims are made that don’t impress me. Fuzzy photos don’t help at all.

The science of Boltzmann, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, and Feynman are telling me the same things that Ezekiel was saying about the wheelworks machine.

With scholarly investigation, attention to detail and respect, they are saying the boundaries of your discussion are lot larger than the concepts these several comments are exploring.

The conversation continues at:

http://www.scientificblogging.com/philosophical_scientist/late_night_ram...

for those who would like to know what other science was left out of college.

Einstein's absolute constant light speed c, is under attack, since 1993, when Einstein was proven wrong about quantum wave entanglement. To hold light speed completely constant requires infinite power at every point in space. So the constancy of light speed will definitely be over turned, in favor of a light speed that is nearly constant in most places much of the time.

The metric for space time is constructed from the g(uv) of the coordinate system, not from light speed. Multilinear analysis is the place to find the mathematics. Here is a link to the volume I use often.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Multilinear-Analysis-Students-Engineering-Scienc...

http://www.amazon.com/Multilinear-analysis-students-engineering-science/...

Maybe you remember Einstein was working with technology from 1916. Considering what the other technology from 1916 looked like, it is not a bad idea to deliver him to the antique dealers and move on to a modern view of science.

About 30 serious attempts have been made to improve on Einstein's work, and many of those predict the experimental data as well as Einstein did. Accuracy of measurements is not great enough to say which theory is best.

We know for sure that Einstein's general relativity contains structural errors, that fail to describe a black hole correctly.

**** "the black hole solutions from Einstein’s field equations shows the theory predicts a black hole to contain no volume" ***

http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock_physicist/cosmic_flash_memory

We need to have space travel capabilities to test the new theories and discover the next steps in understanding general relativity.

---------------------------------------

From your earlier comments I would say that for people who live in 4 dimensions, any actions that originate in 5 dimensions ( Kaluza–Klein et al ) would be miraculous, although those actions might be considered a work of technology in the 5 dimensional world.

The 5D people have the same response to actions from a 6D world, although by now they should have caught on to the 6D concept.

I under stated the case, because most of science in high energy physics is now supporting a 10D model of local space time and a 12D cosmology.

It doesn't end there. A unified field string theory requires 26 dimension unless a special case is claimed of super symmetry. That's not the end of it either. There are serious theories of 52 and 208 dimensions. I'm not saying you will find a divine creator in 26 dimensions or 208 dimensions of supernatural space time.

What I'm saying is that we are very small. We live in something like a net of 4 dimensions, surrounded by things we don't understand.

To get an understanding for the next level of science, we will need to develop ability to travel between stars and measure the space and time near black holes and neutron stars. That requires a minimum of 6 dimensions ( three of space and three of time). Until then we are stuck with the antique theories of a previous century.

When we achieve star travel and the time travel that goes with it in the same technology, the questions you asked and the issues you raised will not be answered in 6, 10, or 26 dimensions.

Those discussions will always go with us to the next level.

Information is certainly capable of overcoming energetic entropy - that is the point. However an abundance of energy does not overcome informational entropy. It tends to make things more random - going from instability to instability - consider Poincare.

The proof is the Fermi-Pasta-Ullam problem - where a very small amount of information introduced as a non-linearity can overcome a highly energetic instability and immediately return it to the normal mode.

This occurred historically in 4D when Jesus rebuked the winds and the waves and they calmed - God had become man, the Divine nature was asleep in the back of the boat (according to ancient Church Fathers).

Technically this is possible, but it requires infinite point information of state. So Jesus Christ is the only begotten Word of God, and where the Son is there the Father is also.

"There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard." - even science and physics.

*clap clap clap*
I must admit, that I found this page while seeking, sincerely seeking, some more answers on my world view. No, not answers. Information as to base my judgements.
I am an ex-pastor and current seeker of truth. My experiences in life, ( I am sadly over 40 now ), do not add up to what I was taught in ministry school. No, they don't call it that, I do. :o)
Anway, I give kudos to the very pretty, and equally intelligent scientist who started this whole discussion.

And kudso also to those who added their fives cents and in some cases, a dollars worth of input.

After reading this whole page, and it took some time as I read some parts twice, it comes down to this.

Cher...you don't know everything.
Andy Holland..neither do you, and nor does anyone else who posts here.
You are all guessing. Some guess with more of the so-called "facts" behind them than others.

But the wonderful thing here is that all of us are here debating because we are Curious. We WANT to know.

Sadly, none of us will know who is right until that fateful moment after we breath our last breath on earth.
Now, we are at the heart of this.

Because for many, not all, it is the Fear behind that last breath that motivates us to WANT to know.
Christians don't want to screw up in case the end up in hell.
Scientists don't want to deal with unfounded fear of an unseen entity, so they write him/her out of the equation all together.

Generally, I kind of like the Buddha's answer to the origins of all things.

In a nutshell...the Buddha said, It don't matter. Focus on now. Don't debate what can never ever ever be proven.

Hmmm...maybe that uneducated, barbaric ancient sage had something going for him after all? Hmmm.

Also...Pogyhauler, I like your post alot too. Well done.

Peace to you all. I hope one day God answers my prayer, and tells me everything that is true.
That's all I ask. Is it that big a deal for God to communicate to me?
Hence, why I'm here searching. LOL

Damn, I get goose bumps when strangers tell me I'm not stupid. You made my month.
Sequels never meet expectation, but I just got stroked enough to try again.

Despite that, you have my overflowing thanks for giving me an excuse to finish my thought.
So, now you the target.

Gautama Buddha, unfortunately, didn't say that. Though I wish he did.
There is no effective single paragraph synopsis of the 9 (or 12, depending) principles.
Given that Bigheads have been trying for a few millennia, it is undoubtedly fantastically presumptuous.
But, the closest I can get is:
"Godhood is an intrinsic. We all possess a piece of it. We don't see it, because we are not quiet. When we become quiet, Godhood will emerge and all that separates us from Nirvana will dissipate."
Buddhism is not patient. Buddha said that the way takes work. Lot's and lots of work.
Buddha warns that mistakes are gonna cost. the longer you take, the more pain you feel.

I don't buy that one either.

Religionists of every stripe, and Especially those deriving of the hebraic mythos, Are in fact, 'God Fearing'.
In the best of circumstances, that wouldn't be any issue atall. Nothing wrong with a bit of moral self censorship no matter what the motivation. I don't care if your justification comes from Buddha or the Baron Samedi. If you act like a citizen, we got no problems whatsoever.

Unfortunately, there is this whole effrontery over what is 'Truth'. And, how that is supposed to affect not only their behavior, but yours too. None of this Evangelism is motivated by 'Fear of God'.
Hebraism has, down to the bone, a directive to police the universe. "Spreading the word", "Witnessing", and any of 50 other euphemisms get used to mask the fundamental assumption of Authority by virtue of Moral Ascendancy.
Hebrews, Muslims, Christians all, are told they are "Beloved", and the only way they get to stay "beloved", is to get other people 'Beloved' too. Even if if they gotta load another Clip.

Creationists have been told they are 'Special', and this special makes them 'better'. and this better, gives them not just the right, but the responsibility to use Any means to counter impediments to the Authority of "God", and the annointed that speak for him. They like this. they like it just fine, and woe to the sophists, and dark skins, that treat them just like any other poor schmuck in the street.

Deep in the bowels of Hebraic dogma, lurks the notion of 'Tolerance'. This as opposed to 'Acceptance'.
Jews have this down pat. History has taught them how to play a back game. Though Zionism throws a few cute twists.
At it's best, 'Tolerance', in the Hebraic/Christian/Muslim lexicon means "don't kill 'em until you're sure you can't control 'em".

The 'New Testament' does naught to change that. 'Turn the other cheek' all to often gets re-interpereted as
"just you wait, payback is a bitch".

Unfortunately Seeker, You are the only 'Seeker' here.
Of the rational types, some may be engaged in education, self or otherwise. But, most of them are pretty well set in the theocracy department. You gotta understand that, with the occasional exception of the guys with the 'Oh Wow' moments mentioned before, rational types just don't buy this 'Revelation' thing. Or any of the bags hangin off it.
That includes the whole rollup about "My Truth trumps your benighted ignorant lack of faith. Do what I say, 'cause The Book is on my side"

Of the Creationists, they ain't 'seekin' nuthin. They have their conclusion. All of this noise is them working back from that and tuning the propaganda. They are up to their collective hairlines in 'Truth'. If they're looking for anything atall, it's a fresh argument ploy to FUD up the debate and grab that hanging vote on the school board with threats and innuendo.
A rationalist, talking to a creationist, starts with 'You're wrong', and ends the same way. the knotted path between affects nothing. There is no communication, no compromise, no unification, no 'seeking' whatsover. Never has been, Never will be.

Creationists are simply the most vocal, (and by that virtue only, the most annoying) religionists.
Religionists care not a whit about science. it's irrelevant in all respects save one.
It's damn inconvenient..... It keeps people out of the pews, and money out of the collection basket. and makes it tougher to stump for votes. 'Science', especially to an Evangelical, is naught more than a tactical impediment to Rallies in the Town Square. Propaganda in the schools, And legislation based on fear mongering, and "Family Values".

'Science', asks the one question their book don't answer. So, in one stroke, cuts the legs out from under their self appointed authority.

If you think your gonna crack the faith of the guy that walks about with the self inflicted delusion that 'Gods Design' is evident in fractals. Think again.

None of us are debating. Every word, in this whole thread, including mine, are proselytizing. Pure and simple.
The battle lines were drawn when the first village Charismatic took the original version of the Book of Genesis to heart,
and decided it was enough reason to go whip up some populace to steal the next village's grain.

I, am not just an a-gnostic. I'm a heretic. In reliquaries all over the planet, there are whole volumes of rationale about why I should be burned at the stake. The Catholics have names for some of my particular evils. I'm a Humanist, and a Manichaeist apologist.

For meself, I'm pretty much convinced that this bag of water I walk around in is about the only thing I own.
It's real likely that when this soup of anti-entropic chemicals wears out, whatever is me, wears out too.
In the off chance, that there is a 'me' left anywhere past 4 minutes after the cessation of brain activity,
I got no clue what I'll be seeing. and there no chance I'm gonna come across anybody that does.
If I have to face the metaphysical equivalent of a small claims court, I'll stand on my record, thank you.

Unfortunately, this attitude is an unforgivable affront to a hebraic. To an Evangelist of the Post WW2 american home grown variety, it's not just insult, it's a crime. I can't be left to walk around so carelessly, with my self aquired morals and all. I need a keeper, And God says, I'd best go find one of the annointed and sign on. If I don't, I'm fair game.

Chaos theory, or the whichness of the why not withstanding. Personally, I have a request of whomsoever of a creationist bent may stumble into this catharsis. I don't trust your book, and I don't trust You. You do Not have my best interests at heart, and there is not a shell game you can play that'd convince me otherwise. You keep your mythos inside your own walls. Just like everybody else from the Confucians, to the Presbyterians, Universalists, Jesuits, NAC, Rastafarians, Voodou, and... Me.

We can have all kinds of fun in forums, soap boxes, letters to the editor and the like.
But..... Keep your fear and blood covered 'Judgment Day' away from my kids. Keep your 'Higher Power' out of my courts. and keep that ersatz, all too convenient, disingenuous, presumptuous, snide, intolerant collection of of Kosher laws you call 'Family Values' out of my life.

Oh, I feel So much better.

OK, I may have missed something because I got tired and started skimming after about, I don't know, 50 or so paragraphs describing how mutations work. Only an idiot would be unable to see that beetles (for example) can change until another kind of beetle arises. So what!?

Bacteria replicate and give rise to nasty little bacteria, fish breed and have little, tiny fish as offspring and cats breed and have small fuzzy kittens and so on. This doesn't mean that a sponge grew eyes and limps and crawled out of the "primordial ooze". Or, that there was a "primordial ooze".

So, OK, you have proven that DNA can be rearranged and this changes things up a little so that a toy manchester terrier and great dane are so different. We've established that a breeding pair of tiny spiders landing on a remote island can give rise to a whole host of new kinds of spiders and you expressed your take on how this happened quite well, I'm sure. But, how about you explain how natural selection, or whatever, can explain how to select for silk spinning. Then explain how this gave rise to the amazing variety in the way said silk is used.

As an agnostic who has observed the whole debate about our origins for 45 years I honestly want to know. How would a bug would grow new holes in his ass and then set about figuring out how to use it? Then explain to me how it is you don't know what this poor man, or screen or whatever meant. In the 50s the earth was around 50,000 years old. Then people began to critically examine the likely hood of random chance giving rise to the complexity of life all around us.

The answer: "Given enough time anything can happen." I wasn't yet observing the debate in the 50s but I have read a tract (it looked like a religious tract) printed by a Humanist organization in the 50s that stated this as a matter of fact. I took notice when the estimate was revised upward to the hundreds of thousands in the 60s as the problems became more and more apparent.

See given enough time, inert chemicals could combine to make DNA. Given enough time, a pair of bugs with a tiny mutation that creates a , what a cyst?, and they pass it on to their offspring who happen to be more viable (Due to the mutation, right? Isn't that what "natural selection" means?) and pass this mutation on to more and more mutated bugs, right?

Then the tissue in the cyst mutates and makes silk.... but wait no outlet so, then a couple mutate such that the new gland has an outlet and they mate and start shooting silk out of their butts. But then what? Was it sticky? How many random mutations gave rise to all the varieties of silk one spider can spin. Just how does random chance "taught" them how to use them in novel ways?

Now, be honest. Explain the gaps in the fossil record. You know, the ones that if found would show where one kind of animal turned into another one. Your article is just what has me fed up with both sides of the debate. You have not shown that one kind of animal gives rise to another kind, yet imply that the idea that we are offspring of single cell organisms that came to life because the proper elements and conditions came together.

I know my post was all over the place. I have ignored the design vs chance issue for some time. Then when i start to try use the web to research some issues I find what looks very much to me to be dogma on both sides. I base this on all the "stupid things XXX group said" and all the belittling that goes on.

Here's an example: Starting quite some time ago I have heard the phrase "transition species" many times and heard and read (evolutionists were saying this, mind you) that there was difficulty with the theory of evolution due to a lack of "transitional species". Then, I read a Scientific American" article about the scientists sifting through harvester ant beds, in one of the northern panes states, for tiny fossils which the ants had brought up in tunneling. The goal was to find evidence of "transitional species" in teeny tiny marsupial bone and tooth fragments.

Then the other day I was trying to figure out if the platypus is transiting from water fowl to mammal (or back, because whales crawled from the primordial ooze only to devolove their legs and crawl back again, right) because I watched a program in which a scientist said dinosaurs with feathers and birds with teeth are "transitional species" so by the same reasoning... just kidding. I was wondering about what was currently being said about "transitional species".

The thing that set me off is that I found a forum in which a visitor asked about some animal or other being "transitional species" and the very first reply was "Grown ups in real biology don't talk about "transitional species" any more." That sounds like defense an idea that won't stand up to me.

And I'm 50 years old. I didn't learn to read until I was in the 6th grade but tested in high school level in some things while in the 5th grade because I made up for my dyslexia by learning to listen. Actually, I read on a second grade level and had great retention for spoken word as well as for the spoken word. The things I really remembered was science. I had an infinity for it. An I remember reading in text books and later hearing that "We know the age of rocks because of the fossils we find in them." In the next section I read that "we know the age of fossils because of the type of rock their in." Sounds like dogma to me.

I also leaned about the "scientific approach" and way back when evolution (not that the birds from the same ancestor have a varitey of beak sizes and shapes due and the variety is greater or lesser due to food availability) I talking about we climbed out of the ooze evolution qualifies at best as a model, period!

Furthermore, it's been rammed down my throat that "if it can't be measured, if it can't be observed it doesn't exist". But this only applies when it's expedient in promoting whatever dogma we are vested in, right?

Then there's all this about mutations. Why is it something that been around so long and mutates so readily hasn't lost it's curly wings or blindness or all the other harmful mutations? Shouldn't natural selection gotten rid of it by now. And, what about when we force mutations? Do we not hit a wall every time? Are there not harmful consequences when we try to get too much out of our meddling?

And, why do we ignore the Cambrian explosion? I don't even have the stomach for trying to learn about this any more and the above article just set me off because it reminded me of the frustration of trying to sift the horse hockey from the apple butter and hearing on the radio that in a plasma (or something to that effect) you know conditions in a comet (OK, my listening skills have declined some in the past few years and I was doing something else) chemicals align for form viruses and I thought "Oh wow" the I heard three words i have come to have (in the context of "science") "in a model".

Then while earnestly trying to figure out how against the second law (you know the one?) life on earth came from inanimate matter to become ever more complex and found this article with it's fake setup to it's sermon and well yea you only thought I was all over the place.

Back to a spider. So I guess the spider found it had a tiny, little, itty bitty, incremental change and used it and then there was another it learned to use it and so on and some how these tiny, little, itty bitty, incremental changes provided an advantage until all the elements were there and the spider just had to learn to use what these tiny, little, itty bitty, incremental changes provided, namely silk. Wouldn't the wiring to know how to use silk have to be a dure tiny, little, itty bitty, incremental changes to?

And whatever was put forth in the above article proves it, right? Except all we ever observe is beetles only ever produce beetles and dogs only ever produce dogs and if we push for something for too much variability we make dogs that have genetic problems. On the other hand, science rejects that idea that there might be a living organism (a pulp worm maybe) makes pulp stones in teeth because we don't make optics powerful enough to detect them. In other words if it can't be observed it can't be. Except in matters of faith. What little of the research I could stomach seems to indicate, to me, that there is no more compelling evidence for evolution than there is on those islands where one kind of bird (see they never even changed into another kind of bird, if finches started to swim and eat fish I'd concede at once.) "gives rise" (a good evolution term, right?) to the same kind of birds but their offspring over time will have more or less widely varied beaks due to environmental pressures.

I'm sorry, I don't even know if the wording in the last couple sentences make sense and I'm out of steam. Once someone explains how something we have never observed and what 100 years of the most convoluted assumptions built on conjecture is science.. I give up. I though I wanted study the issue so I could at least form an some kind of idea weather there was anything more compelling than i already know and I think it's useless, so I have been venting.

Wow, I'd love to be able to go back and edit that last one or delete it maybe. Oh well. As soon as another monkey overshoots a branch but still catches it with it's tail but keeps going until it lands on it's back thereby loosing it's tail and being able to stand upright or another lizard runs and runs from predators flapping it's little front legs until the flapping frays its scales and they eventually become feathers and it starts to fly, or some similar instance where one kind of animal turns into another kind of animal let me know. I'll gladly do whatever I can do to assist the high priests of "science" preach evolution (We're not getting into what I mean by evolution again let's just say that what we observe now isn't it.)

I'm pro-biology. pro-physics. pro-chemistry. pro-genetics. (ad nauseum). How does being anti-evolution make me anti-science? I was trying to explain that the theory of Evolution only explains how and when we evolved. That's it. If I want to understand how an airplane works in order to be able to build one myself, I will study and execute all the necessary SCIENTIFIC aspects involved. Knowing that it was the Wright Brothers who invented the first airplane in 1903 doesn't change anything!

By creation scientist, I mean a scientist that is also a young earth creationist. I suppose you are saying that no such thing exists because you believe that any true scientist must believe in evolution?

And, why not give me an example of how belief in evolution led to some great advancement in science? (that is, the scientist in question would not have discovered and/ or invented what he did without his belief in evolution)

In reply to Mark Berman.

lol, yes it looks like you got sucked back in.

I ususally don't participate in online debates either. Do you think anyone has ever changed sides because of an internet debate? I'd love to meet such a person....

I appreciated your response ( it was very interesting) and will reflect on an answer shortly.

Wow, I appreciate the time both of you must have taken to answer me... and Gerhard you were pleasantly diplomatic! (I'm not being sarcastic) So, I will in turn, take the time to think of my rebuttal and reply shortly...

My intention was to take the time to carefully answer your previous post, but I think I will just conclude with this:

The theory of ID has been written about much more clearly and convincingly than I could ever hope to write in this blog... so I won't. But that is the theory I propose. (authors I have personally read: Francis Collins, Phillip Johnson, Ken Ham, Marvin Lubenow, Grant Jeffrey, Werner Gitt, Lee Strobel, Michael Behe, Jonathann Wells, Michael Denton, Jonathan Safarti)

In your second to last post, you admitted that science has not yet provided a satisfactory explanation to the questions of the origin of life. And that is really all I wanted. I am completely satisfied. You made my day!

And you finished by stating that the other alternative was to postulate magic. I postulate:

Quote: ' Theism, with its concept of a transcendent Creator, provides a more causally adequate explanation of the Big Bang than a naturalistic explanation can offer. The cause of the universe must transcend matter, space, and time, which were brought into existence with the Big Bang. The Judeo-Christian God has precisely this attribute of transcendence. Yet, naturalism, by definition, denise the existence of any entity beyond the closed system of nature. Theism affirms the existence of an enityt that's not only transcendent but intelligent as well- namely God.'
- Stephen Meyer

That's all. Thank you for your time.

If you're thinking of the realm of ability to move scooters for children, a large fair availablility of creators which were regarded as a responsible, long lasting and therefore experienced. These a good deal more top notch brandnames can be relied on by way of separate as they were capable of appear their unique well worth within the timeframe that they have experienced reputation plus set up. Bruno flexibility motor scooters are some of the most trustworthy [url=http://filmy-online.com.pl]Filmy[/url] motor scooters that had been available in the unlock markets and perhaps they are created for distinct grounds and also purposes. Like just about all transportability motor scooters, they are supposed to have been useful people that will need provider active.

In some cases this is exactly brought about by each man or woman is reduced an accident. Here is an example, when someone also has cracked each of the your feet on an mishap, the can desire business transactions on some Bruno transport personal mobility scooter basically because they will be unable to include just about any stress to the tip toes while they are dealing with. Preferably instead, they'll must beared. Wheelchairs are a choice, but also for families anticipating typically the our bones in his or her paws so that you can get better, it's not always a very good mortgage period treatment for the situation. Bruno mobility kids electric scooters allows the patient for being quite simply shipped back harbors, but while doing so maintain more comfortable and therefore qualified to have a rest. The last item any person wants is stress and anxiety plus problem put on them, specifically when you're looking at individuals that are needing to renew.

Through process of making sure that the patient happens to be trapped in a snug and strain-free status, they could totally focus more to do with medicinal and turn into in many excellent people, rather than settling to a feasible depression symptoms by reason of will certainly move about as easily when they used to be able to do.

One additional instance of people that can benefit from ipod like Bruno mobility electric scooters is people who are unhealthy weight .. Being hefty will lay quite a lot of constant worry not to mention stress on your whole body weeks remaining brought in and around. Rather in comparison with place tension and therefore force on [url=http://graj-online.pl]Gry[/url] the very joint capsules, systematically increasing the possibility of problem or simply lock up, it usually is simpler and easier but more hassle-free to the visitors employ Bruno activity child scooters right an amazingly time frame your person is ready to eliminate a lot of their weight. Since this may sometimes be an extensive process, most people would benefit in the meantime using making use of the Bruno capability to move children scooters that you can get for your purchases, in both used and new conditions. By to be able to be based upon a tool that will someone to move about immediately combined with easily, more advanced the particular all those normally would start up by themselves anywhere up to recent thoughts as they simply not necessarily need to worry about having themselves using a potentially dangerous position. Despite all the time it appears as though an individual might be not as productive, the truth is that end up being tracking down things to learn any of them if you're considering to decide to carry out issues, that they really be boosting their very own physical activity phases.Transportability child scooters will offer lots of efficiency to those that happen to be getting injured and also too fat, and desire guidance relating to gaining in one spot for a yet another. Whether you were aiming to limit the stress and anxiety and thus overload where did they wear this cheese in their individual to help you limit the risk of a wound, or maybe the person is couple weak to put together on your travels as quickly as you have to or just wish to have the know-how to, activity motor scooters [url=http://game-online1.com]Games Online[/url] may give some sort of accepted relief of pain in order to those men and women for that these are generally therefore in a position to attain the selected specific dreams with regards to moving around and / or from a spot for a yet another. Still, consumers want to have the ability rely on the security in addition to toughness for those kid scooters.

It's essential, seeing as usually the affected person may not be simply being assisted anymore compared to they'd frequently do without a mobility scooter. To pick up anything intended to walk one about, followed by struggle to get your blood flowing within it at times would certainly easily be perceived as by simply almost all people as being a host fritter away involving. This is the reason a lot of people may need to look with the more knowledge about their very own capability to move child electric scooters right before many investment these folks. There are plenty of stuffs that tends to make one sort of capability to move child scooter compatible with identical volume transport personal mobility scooter just because the real difference involving the not one but two may equip yourself to indeed be trusted more frequently than additional you will always be.

Price tags not to mention characterizations each and every flexibility mobility scooter has regarded as attentively by buyers in order to ensure oftentimes to make the correct judgment with regard to most of the investment in transport scooters. The winter months is not only just a time by which men and women are prone to get injured on account of element illnesses, yet it's one more time in which inturn families need be qualified to trust in their unique transportability mobility scooters out of doors. Because these, web sites have started to supply 4wd range of motion kid scooters. These operate in identical approaches to Four proceed force trucks.

4wd movability scooters for kids permit separate for getting with additional hold much more than the activity, perhaps even with modern day or alternatively smooth options. Where less effective ability to move kid scooters can get trapped, ability to move child electric scooters through 4wd are able to get throughout the complex necessary negative effects of element and thus hold the human being secure when they are transmitted derived from one of section to a different. While they can be higher quality, they even teach will offer you a bit more as a result of hassle-free operation along with effectual functionality. Some people will should be mindful, nevertheless. If one is currently in The state of az, they could not really should try to search for 4wd range of motion personal mobility scooter basically because they are usually not come across requiring this kind of merchandise. Instead of, such type of investment should really be discussed wisely, logically and rationally from the buyer just prior to his or her's commitments inside investing in a 4wd capability to move personal mobility scooter at a organization or another retail outlet, Pennysaver marketing campaign or any other one who is going to be separating using 4wd activity scooters.
In stores, we are going to generally see thoughts when most of us detect a man or woman which is sitting with a personal mobility scooter on and on regarding their unique going shopping progression. Sometimes you can find a bag coupled to the mobility scooter in addition to other repetitions there are no longer. We sees individuals progress and thus on the lanes, but for the safeguards most typically associated with as well alternative . they will beep credit rating [url=http://gamesoonline.com]Games Online[/url] in reverse that allows you to mindful other types. The Three rim disability child scooters empower you to journey combined in the moped quite a bit in terms and a small and tailor-made auto.

Usual tires construct a relaxed condition for this distinctive to be, and then they conveniently give the guy to be back, forwards, right and left. This could be very beneficial for individuals that are injured, yet still require grocery shopping. As an illustration, after they splits one on their hip and legs, this will certainly posess zero result on their eating food make. Even even while their specific feet get well, they are going to seemingly now need to eat, take pleasure in and function. Having a physical injury will not reduce people right from running each of these proceedings. The applying an actual 5 proceed range of motion motorbike might encourage the man or woman to concentrate on only just the vital elements. There will vary sorts of motor scooters available that you can buy, in addition to Six steering wheel movability scooters for kids were actually a few of the firstly designs that was provided and hang avaiable for purchase if anyone is to advance in the case of tailored transporting combined with program. Not one agent trustworthy and durable, however identified for a specified duration for this designers to grasp so what is and is not useful designing these kinds of.

There are way more different places than men and women may have heard live when considering options for getting a lot of these mobility child electric scooters. Some persons could quite possibly have looked at often the adverts in the news late into the evening making reference to these activity child electric scooters, nevertheless we are not truly limited by purchasing these devices by late night ads. The actually that there exists a range of firms that build these kinds of offered new to people today, but there are also considerably more shops that you may invest in a utilised range of motion child scooter along with 4 engine's wheels, for example from being a newspaper’s classified ads sections, a respectable auction site or possibly gift website, and also using a world wide web retain that's putting up for sale A number of car movability children scooters.

Why they separated if anyone is desiring to obtain these range, but for the most part there're bought via people that are precipitated discomfort if it is on their own base [url=http://pozycjonowaniee.pl]Pozycjonowanie[/url] for an extended period of energy. As an example ,, people that have any broken bones of their system through the waist along and tend to be seeking to recover will manage to benefit. That being said, as well, [url=http://oonline-games.com]Games[/url] will be able to those that are regarded as being obesity, mainly because in a few instances this will likely contribute to stress symptoms not to mention strain on the body, participating in more damage than good when considering walking food shopping, to illustrate. The plus points that design of machine provides to the private can vary individually, but there's lots of things going for find.
Quite possibly the most popular various portability electric scooters are the type who were crafted and built with have a look at automobile. They are likely to choose forwards, back and lastly nearly everywhere. For quite a while what you previously respected as very beneficial and also advantageous, and most everyone loved the main functionality and additionally ease which machines just like these people provided to those who necessary the counsel. Even so, with time, simply because technology skilled, persons begun to get started on wishing greater numbers of almost all their scientifically established objects, most notably flexibility scooters for children.

And also, mainly because firms started generate a great deal more changes with their ability to move children scooters, in order to make them more desirable for shoppers, sooner or later a certain amount of manufacturers came up with the concept o pattern convenience kids electric scooters that will be allowed to job utilizing reduced four tires, and provides further into the private by way of economy, simplicity and style. This is part most typically associated with are they all so that beautiful and thus appealing to purchasers and folks which were buying these things, especially if they realize they've did start to demand whatever to assist them to move around picked up from one place to one other. Sometimes such things happen because a consumer succumbs an pain, whilst in the some other periods these devices are suggested by way of individuals that would certainly sense problem while moving pertaining to available at this reliable speed or perhaps for an incredibly long-term certain period of time.

Lots of people could fail to think that for that reason, yet somehow portability kids electric scooters may not be to be an individual’s suv. They wish to have points and thus units that will aid these to feel good about on their own. They are looking for points that will appear nice and clean. 3 take freedom scooters for kids present don't just ground breaking technological know-how and additionally simplicity, but they're of course competent to offer a new look to people which happen to be considering paying for these kind of goods. They are designed to peek sleek and even sleek, not even unlike a vehicular. The circular sides plus tough pattern establish Various table transportability scooters in demand, although there's nothing what normally clenches the situation for these kinds of mobility scooters. Somewhat, oahu is the various things that the unique will do while using Some car mobility mobility scooters that can help to position these in front of you with regard to the happiness coupled with rewards that include the scooter.

Not likely tied to tough converts or even some level transforms, the main one singular proceed in the front with a few tyre transport kid scooters would allow anybody to maneuver around in an exceedingly even more liquefied steps. People specifically have to go up, then back, and be able to forward any more to help you complete a clean move. In its place, this new more understated take a look for this moped and also the unassuming structure help the various in control of a few of the take ability to move scooter to shift at a more standard together with gradual manner. This makes these kinds of freedom razor electric scooters preferable for you to the general public due to the fact give you performance, and therefore stretched out convenience together with layout in addition to sleek patterns which can help to manufacture a man or woman feel happier about recognizing [url=http://free-gameso.com]Games Online[/url] that they may require assistance moving about every now and again. No a single likes to fully feel hopeless, as well as ability to move motorcycle enjoy this will add a fun frame in to the incident.

2 Cher Stewart

You exhibit all the traits of a radical believer, and at the same time you're trying to mask this fact by occasionally making some kinda agnostic statements, like “that’s my opinion, not a fact.”

“The universe isn't miraculous for this very reason.” ©

I love this one. We have no clue about what over 80% of the universe is, but we already know that it “isn't miraculous”. It seems to me that just like ignorance was the biggest quality of humanity 10 centuries ago, self-confidence is the biggest quality of humanity today. By the universal scales, we literally just crawled out of our caves, but “the ONLY unanswered questions” you “have …is why there was energy to begin with and what lies beyond on our universe that causes this seemingly never-ending expansion.” ©

Could you allow me to express my humble opinion…? Considering ALL the unanswered questions that exist in the universe, most likely I will be carried out of my house in a wooden box (and I don’t expect it to happen any time soon), before humanity discovers even 99% of everything that there is still out there. I’m, for instance, trying to reinvent a living cell for myself, for curiosity sake. Your description of it ( “it’s quite simple the way a cell works” © ) fits well into my school Biology textbook from the 80-s, but definitely doesn’t fit our modern knowledge of it at all, because the more we go down that rabbit hole, the more miraculous things are being discovered (good bedtime reading, by the way http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 )

I truly never stop being amazed by stupidity and ignorance of religious lunatics and by self-confidence of the atheists alike. This is what was said by one of the greatest minds who ever lived (and the following quote doesn’t even represent his religious believe, but it rather represents his shyness and modesty in a presence of this VAST complexity and order of things that we don’t really know anything about yet):

"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranges and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." - Albert Einstein.

WHO created DNA????

DNA and Chance Mutations 2012
Is it possible for random chance mutations to produce all the information we find in the DNA of cells? You will calculate the odds of getting a useful DNA molecule and a first cell and compare it with how many mutations (or events) could have taken place in all time. You can then calculate the odds of forming your DNA by chance. Let’s get familiar with probability by flipping a coin. If you are good with probability skip to #6

1. What are the chances of flipping a coin and getting a “head”? _1__ out of 2 or ½ or 50%.
2. Now flip it. What did you get? __AWV_ Does the coin know which side was up last time? __no_ If you flip it again will the chances of it being the same as the first flip be less than, greater than or equal to the first time? _equal___ How many combinations are possible if you flip a coin twice? List all the combinations here: for example (H=head T=tail) HT, TH, _HH_or _TT. Since there are 4 combinations the chances of getting two heads is 1 out of __4__ or 1/4th or _25___%.
3. What are the chances of getting 3 heads in a row? Figure out how many different combinations there are such as HHH or HHT and write them all here: _HTT HTH TTT TTH THT THH____________________
How many are there? __8_ The chances of getting HHH is 1 out of _8__ or 1/8th.
4. Do you see a pattern here? If there are 2 possibilities for 1 flip, 4 for 2 flips, 8 for 3 what do you think there are for 4 flips? _16____ (hint: what’s next? 2,4,8,_16__) What about 5 flips? _32____
5. For larger numbers it gets too complicated to write out every combination. We can use a simple formula to calculate the number combinations for 2 heads. The formula for the number of possibilities if n = the number of flips is 2n . 2 times itself the # of flips. For 2 flips it’s 22 = 2x2=4 for 3 flips it’s 23 = 2x2x2=8. What is it for 100 heads in a row? 2 to the __100th____ power, for 1000 heads in a row? 2 to the ___1000th___ power.
6. The odds of getting a particular combination is 1 out of the total number of possible combinations. The odds of getting 2 heads in a row is ½ x ½ = ¼, you multiply, not add the odds. The odds of getting 3 heads is ½ x ½ x ½ = (½)3 or 1/8th. The odds of getting 100 heads in a row, or any particular pattern of heads and tails is ½ times itself 100 times or (½)100 = 1100/2100 or 1/2100(since1 to the 100th power is still 1 since 1x1x1x1x1x1=1). Do you think it’s likely to get 10 heads in a row? __AWV__ Try it a few times. Did you succeed? _no_ Is it likely to get 100 heads in a row? _no_ How about 6,000?__NO_ The DNA of a simple cell has over 6,000 ATCGs in the correct order. Humans have over 10 million in 30,000 genes. (actually 3 billion ATCG’s but much may be non coding)
7. There are 2 choices when flipping a coin. DNA and written language are both Complex Specific Information. DNA has 4 different molecules in its “alphabet”, ATCG (Adenosine= A, Thymine = T, Cytosine = C and Guanine = G), to make the messages to run cells. The order of the DNA units is in a code that tells a cell either to build a frog or a tree. Random chance can produce complex rows of letters: rycbtisdrcbcaksvbscnervkdby but it’s not specific information. Crystals are specific information, but it’s repeated over and over like writing “crystalcrystalcrystal”. It’s not complex. This could produce a snowflake but not a poem or a cell or anything needing complex specific information. DNA is complex AND specific, like written language. It uses triplet codes which are like words and like words a few triplet codes can’t do anything. Genes are long strings of DNA triplet code words that code for a protein. They are like sentences. They can do one thing each but can’t act alone. The genes of a simple cell would fill pages if all the ATCG bases were written out – like a chapter or small booklet. If you wrote out all the ATCG's in our 20 to 30,000 genes of DNA at a 100 per line & 100 lines per page they would fill over how many pages? ___1000_____ (divide 10 million by 10,000). To get a simple phrase like “to be or not to be” by randomly typing letters would be 1 out of over 1015or 1 out of __1,000,000,000,000,000______.
8. The theory of chemical evolution says chance mutations are the explanation for how those first DNA molecules for the first cell got in the right order to work and work together. Random mutations are also the explanation that the theory of evolution has for how the DNA formed to make wings and eyes and every living thing on earth. If the ATCG’s were floating around in an ancient ocean or pond and started to connect together, what would be the chance of getting an A first? (Assume there are lots of ATCG’s in equal numbers) 1 out of _4__ or 1/4.
9. What are the chances of getting two A’s in a row? You need to write all the possible combinations of 2 letters that could be made from the 4 ATCG’s: AT, TA, AA, AG, _TT,TA,TC,TG,GG,GA,GT,GC,CC,CA,CT,CG_______. There are _16__ different combinations so the chances of getting one is 1 out of 16 which is ¼ x ¼ .
10. To get 3 ATCG’s such as AGA in the correct order would be ¼ x ¼ x ¼ or (1/4)3 = 1/43 = 1/64th. To get 4 in the right order is one out of 4 to the 4th or . What power of 4 is 64? __4__ Do you see the same pattern as the coins? A gene is the smallest section of DNA that has the code to make a protein. Natural selection can CHOOSE good genes, but not CREATE them. Natural Selection explains the SURVIVAL of the fittest, not the ARRIVAL of the fittest. Smaller sections of DNA are useless and thus natural selection can’t choose them. What are the odds of getting a small gene of 300 ATCG’s in the right order to make a simple protein? It’s ¼ times itself 300 times or 1 out of 4 300th power = about 10 240th. Is this possible? What are the odds of getting a simple cell of only 250 genes? Even if only 20% of the DNA code needs to be right (only 20% of the ATCGs coding for the protein Cytochrome C may need to be in the correct order for it to work) that is still over 20% of 250 x 300 = _15,000__ ATGC’s in the right order! The odds of getting that by chance is ¼ to the _15,000th___ power. Now let’s change that into a power of 10. 45 = 103 and 410 = 106 , use this 5:3 ratio to convert the chances of getting a simple cell's ATCG’s into 1 out of 10 to what power (hint:45,000 = 103,000)? _9,000_ =1 with __9,000__zeros!
11. But couldn’t lots of different orders work? Just like in a human language a number of different orders of 100 letters could make “sense” or work in the cell. However it is a small number compared to the orders that don’t work. It varies from protein to protein but is clearly a small fraction less than 1 in a thousand – especially if protein 2 must fit with and work with protein 1 – like parts of a flagellum, just as sentences have to go together or a new part of a car must fit the other parts. The first gene might be less difficult because it could be any of possibly billions of orders but then the next one (like the next sentence in a book) needs to fit with the first one so it must be pretty specific. A perfect feather gene may have no use in a tree. All 250 genes must be in the same place at the same time, you can’t have 249 sitting around waiting for the 250th one to appear, they will start breaking back down in seconds. Does it seem likely that a cell’s genes could get in order by chance? __no___
12. Could this happen in 15 billion years (the estimated age of the universe)? To get 10 heads in a row with only ten flips is hard but if you have 100,000 flips it’s easy. Evolution says that with lots of time and chance genes must have formed. How many “flips of the coin” did nature have? Calculate the maximum number of atomic/chemical events (collisions where atoms could combine) in the whole universe in 20 billion years by multiplying the number of atoms in the universe [6 x 1023 atoms per gram x mass of an average star and it's planets (1035g) x # of stars (1022) in the universe = about 1080 ] by the number of collisions an atom may make per second (1011) times the number of seconds in 20 billion years (60 s/min x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day x 365 days/yr x 20,000,000,000 yrs = 1017 sec.). (Hint: add the exponents:104 x 102 = 106 or 1,000,000). Thus the total number of atomic events is less than 1080 x 1011 x 1018 = _10109_. Thus anything with odds greater than 1 out of 10109 is impossible. This includes single genes only 300 ATCG’s long (10180) or monkeys typing a sentence by chance with only 100 letters! The total number of events in the universe is far too few to explain the information in one gene or the first cell or a wing or an eye or the over 1% difference between our DNA and a Chimp’s. 1% of 10,000,000+ ATCG’s is still _100,000_ ATCG's for odds of less than 1 out of 4 to the _100,000_ or 1/10 60,000 (1 with 60,000 zeros after it-worse than a simple cell in #10). All major steps in the development of life are similar.
13. In the calculations above we assumed a gene or a genome of a first cell could form outside and before a cell existed. That’s not possible according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and chemistry (see H. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution). Large DNA molecules, like genes, only form in cells with many enzymes (special proteins). We have a chicken or the egg problem on top of all this – you need 60+ enzymes to make DNA and you need DNA or at least large RNA to make enzymes! Both need a cell to protect and concentrate molecules and keep other molecules out and ways to remove product so the reaction doesn’t stop and reverse. For Natural Selection to choose good ATCG orders they must already be in the right order to produce a useful molecule that helps a cell survive. ATGC’s don’t produce anything useful for life until they are at least 100’s in a row in the right order (a gene). T or F That is impossible by CHANCE in our universe. We just proved it mathematically.
14. Useless, self replicating (copying) RNA strands do not give you more information – they just makes more copies of random sequences. Making more copies of random letters doesn’t make a poem or a book. RNA would still have to convert over to the DNA and protein language of life. Copying nonsense just gives you more _nonsense_.
15. DNA needs protein enzymes to copy itself and do it’s job, yet the enzymes need DNA to design them. It is one of thousands of “chicken or the egg” problems found in life. Can you think of another? __Flagellum? First cell?__
16. Natural Selection is not the answer, it does not guide mutations. It only acts AFTER the structure or useful molecule produced by a new gene appears. Natural selection can only choose reproducing things that already exist, it can't CREATE anything!! Nor do the laws of nature – there is no self ordering law for DNA or proteins. What CAN create information? (what is needed to write a sentence or build a car?) ___Intelligence_______
Francis Crick (agnostic biochemist-co discoverer of the DNA double helix) did not believe chance could explain the first cell. Sir Frederick Hoyle (atheist astronomer) and Wickramasinghe (mathematician) estimate in Evolution from Space, that the odds of getting a simple cell’s DNA by chance mutations is 1 out of 1040,000 . We are left with 2 questions concerning DNA and the origin of life. 1. How did DNA for a cell get in the right order? 2. How did it form at all before cells existed? What is your hypothesis for the origin of DNA and the information needed for life?

You talked about chemical processes producing structures. Chemical laws or analogs can do that but not information. Analogs can't produce information - only set repetitions of the same orders. A pre-biotic blob is no more a cell than a water balloon. The membrane has to be produced by the DNA and that information doesn't go from structure to DNA but from DNA to structure. The more we understand about the machinery of the cell. They less likely it could come together by itself.
BTW - we don't have to specify the designer or explain (his/her/it's) origin any more than a forensics expert needs to ID the killer to know that it was a murder.
You will never accept a designer no matter how strong the evidence because you have assumed that it happened without one and no matter how impossible it looks you think it happened and you are willing to imaging "scaffolded" cells (that couldn't work any more than a model car is a working car, just LOOKS similar) or blobs of lipids that get mechanically split in two by waves = nothing like a real cell doing fission! Fission comes from within the cell, not due to external jostling. Information goes from DNA to cells parts, not the other way around. You accuse I’D’ of magic, well it gets to a point where imaginary non-life to life sceneries look magical as well – without empirical support. In fact with a lot of empirical opposition to half cells working.

RNA ribozymes are like photocopy machines, They copy whatever you put on them, but they don't write books. Garbage copied is not information. There is no way to select for information if the orders don't do anything - you just get more copies of junk and the working orders are so few, that to get 200 together that work together is impossible. Especially since your ribozymes would probably break down larger molecules unless you had the specially. The minimal cell is like a go cart, it still needs basic parts to work together all at the same time, assembled in the right order.

You should ask yourself what proof you would accept in order to understand that you are biases by naturalistic metaphysics that are preventing you from considering logical alternatives. Naturalism can't be proven by science and the Big Bang shows that there must be something before and outside of nature. You can't use nature to explain its own origin.
I have a power point I could send you - and there are the books by Behe, Demski and Stephen Meyer and many others though I'm not sure facts matter once you have your mind made up. Politically the scientific community has decided to ban thinking in this area so progress will be difficult. It’s too dangerous career wise for scientists to take on an established paradigm. It may take an Einstein.
On the other hand, I don't have my mind made up - I can imaging the gap between prebiotic and biotic getting smaller and smaller and have seen it shrink some in my lifetime (I'm 59). I don’t have a problem with God using His natural laws to make rain or mountains or life. I’m not biased in that way. There are those who can’t believe in evolution as you can’t believe in a designer but I’m not one of them. Neither is Behe.
The Big Bang convinced me that there are forces beyond nature.

I like how this article forgets to mention the fact that 70% of mutations are harmful, with only the remaining 30% being neutral or weakly beneficial. So somehow a process that nets a 70% loss is supposed to ADD enough information that could advance basic pond scum into a fully sentient human being.

I've watched enough Sci-fi to be able to call bull-shit when I see it.