Please dont try to lump evolution the category real science. Because I would argue that atheists don't want to acknowledge the facts of evolution. (namly that it doesn't work) but they insist on it because it is their "religion".

I need the optical connection now so that my optical mouse can fully function. Without it, its way too slow!

I agree, theres no direction in the theory, i didn't mean to imply that there was, i was just makingthe statement that it can go upwards. (it can go down and to the sides) and in the case of "living" fossils, they dont change at all for 150,000,000 years. (I am not claiming that date to be right but thats an entirely different argument)

You have started off in a high state in this example. For a better example would of been a low state leading to a high state. As I would just waive my hands and say look at the complex design of the frog which can be adjusted by NS.

The same almost applies to the human example, I am ignorant of the details of HSP but to me it sounds like you just describe the following:
      the body's complex self repair and error correcting system, (high state),
      a specification of design of the HSP (again high state, how did it get there in the first place)
      A defect/feature? in the design of HSP, (Mutation maybe?) which will lead to other mutations.

That shows NS and mutations in progress. (bad mutations deleted, good (if any?) hopefully kept) For it to demonstrate "evolution", it will need to provide a functional advantage to the host and also have that encoded that into the DNA (was the source in the dna already? how would become workable now in the 2nd generation? i dont understand this. wouldn't the HSP be working in the 2nd gen and hence try to fix the problems of the accumulative mutations? ) without killing it first from cancers, etc..

I agree, falsifying the latest beliefs in evolution wont stop it. You should not ever question evolution because that is unscientific. ;-)
But I would disagree on you that it should suggest that there is the other option that atheists rule out because they dont like it. ID is scientific, because if you saw a watch on the beach, you wouldn't say that the tides, winds and sand made it.

Biology doesn't benefit at all from evolution. Vaccines, surgery, you name it, they all dont need the theory of evolution at all. They all work on the assumption that the body/cells are a complexly design integrated system.
(NS & mutations are required theories for vaccines, etc...)
Easy test to try out, go to your local doctor when your arm is broken, and say, I need my arm fix, tell me doctor, what would having this broken arm do to my chances to procreate ? :-P
Your doctor would be working from the assumption that your bones are a building framework designed (by what/whoever) so you can move, supported by a complex nervious system, surrounded by 1000s of blood vessles. But if your doctor needed to use evolution, he would then say, its a vestigial organ and it's not needed anymore, lets remove it like the appendix.

back in 1926, there were 189 vestigial organs in the body, that is, organs that were no longer functional because of evolutionary changes to the human. Now we know that all organs serve a purpose. yes even the tousles and the appendix which serve to keep good bacteria.

Another example of evolution mixing up in biology is junk dna. which the ceo of the human gnome project admited when he retired to be the biggest mistake of his carrer.
Evolution doesn't add to the understanding of biology at all, it doesn't make us understand how to manipulate genes, how to cure a sickness, how to remove cancer?, it it would try to claim is this very very complex machine wasn't complex before and somehow it became complex on itself.
that would be like giving a Ferrari F1 to a local mancanic and because he see a bicycle, (in this weak story cars evoled from bikes) he should be able to fix the car. No that would not happen, you would give the car over to a specialst who has trained and study all the systems of the car.
So I would reject your idea of any benefit of that theory and hence make the statement that it's not real science.

p.s. I do appreciate that you an intelligent and civilised man (yet passionate still). and you dont resort to name calling like posts above. Normally I find it hard to find someone who actually knows anything in this subject area as usually my friends/coworkers only repeat what they hear on tv with no understanding.

Cheers
Obble.
     

C14 is suppose to be good up to between 50K to 100K. There are scientific concerns that the calibration based on Pharaohs is off because they padded their linage. which would make a dating to seem older by a little. Now the creationist scientist would have a problem in that you are making assumptions about comparing the c12/14 ratios based on current levels of today where if you read the bible, you would know it declared that there was a 1 year, 8 day flood which covered the entire earth. (yes this is possible, it's called catastrophic plait tectonic theory). That would make the dating seem much much older after 4000 years

But when the guy raised that issue he really should of explained it better as it sounded like he was just spewing s**t out.

Your right, I dont believe in abiogenesis

I would have to disagree with you on this on a certain level,
Evolution is taught as a concept things changing but it makes the grand claim of things improving upon themselves to do it, by gaining complexity and self forming into "higher" life forms.

I agree with you that NS isn't quite a synonym of Evol, Many things can effect the "evolution" of a creature.
Well I dont argue that things change and things degrade, neither of these need "evolution" to happen.
lets take a look at how classic evolution is suppose to work beginning with it's first formula:

  E = NS
Now when Charles was alive, he was limited to technology back then so the cell was just a glob. It seem very possible that NS could explain the differences in all the creatures but as we know now NS can only work so far within the bounds of the creature. For example, over 300years of breading pidgins and not a single chicken has emerged. (Joke on chicken and the egg)

That is why then they need mutations to act as a changing agent so new information (leg, wing, etc...) could enter the gene pool.
E = NS + M

Now with modern science we know that if you stand infront of nuclear blast and absorb all thoses beneficial mutations, you will not become the hulk. In fact, we know of over 10,000 mutations which causes cancers, blood sicknesses which are mostly fatal, yet only a handful of good mutations which all involve disabling functional structures in the body (devolving can be a benefit).

Now here we can see how NS will fight against M has much as possible. Normally M is harmless. but if the level of mutations build up, they can then effect the creature. NS would try to cull any creature if a very bad mutation but NS can't filter out minor bad mutations if they don't effect the host too much. The effect is bad mutations build up the gene pool to lethal levels. You wouldn't expect people living around a nuclear plant that leaks radiation to become super fit humans, you would expect them to suffer sickness getting worst in each generation.

Charles became an atheist. I think it happened when one of his children died, but I could be wrong on that.

I would very much doubt if a person could think up a way of how abiogenisis/evolution could happen without deluding himself to a great amount.

I will not put my faith into "fictional science". (Thats story telling like evol and big bang). Thats something that changes like the wind, here one day, something else the next. May I propose the exact idea back to you,
What if a creationist scientist proved that evolution couldn't happen, What if a creationist scientist showed an alternative to all the evol theory, what then? well NOTHING. you just ignore them and continue believing in what you do like what is always happening.

What I should of said in my original post was that you do not get the attention unless you are beating the evolution drum. It's sad that evolution's ideas has taking control over real science's funding. (Watch the film "exposed" to see that in effect.) Thats why I use "real" science when talking to athists with the evol religion that will not accept facts..

sorry I can't watch the youtube films at work, i'll watch later tonight.

I am 100% confidant that he believes he can make cells from metal. But reality is different. In organic cells, the simplest cell is very very complex. Take for example the ATP synthase - the world's tiniest motor, which is a engine which is compulsory for all life. Every cell has 1000s of these as they convert protons into a transportable energy molecule called ATP. For any cell to be manufacture, he must make many many dependant systems to work together before anything can get off the ground with natural selection or "evolution".

I would be very interested in seeing how far and how complex he can make these systems. IMHO: he faces 2 problems,
  1 is he doesn't have the technology to produce replicators, and all the systems needed,
  2 if he very smarter than every other human on earth in orders of magnitudes then people will say:
          2.1 - He hasn't shown evolution because he built complex nano-bot systems, they didn't evol, they were built.
                        or
            2.2 He proves evolution, look at the new life forms, (and they ignore all the nano tech in it, like batteries, circuits, engines, resource transport trucks, error correcting nano nano robots, etc...) Atheist already ignore all the tech in organic cells so it's seems like this event will be more probable.

Also I dont count crystal structures in either rock / salt / poly -metal - oxide - whatever, to be "living".

Note: I am a creation believing christain. I dont believe in evolution. (I do believe in natural selection)

The article talks from the assumption of long ages and evolution. It assumes about the humans mutating from (insert type) monkeys. The Christian view is that we did not come of any type of monkey or ancestry ape. Therefor if you are trying to map the human gnome to any monkey/ape you will require large changes to the information in the dna. I remember reading that even atheists claim that from a mutating gene we all came from a human in Africa (although they date it at ~40K years)

You should all of hear how chims are 98% human, how many of you know that we are 95% horse and 95% mouse, 50% banana.

If you want to hear from what "true" (take it however you want) creation/Christian scientist then take a look at what they are really saying
http://creation.com/qa#faqs // scroll down to the biology section,
http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers // If you want to know the facts behind mutions
http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome // thats just a simple search to see the 98% chim claim was bad science.

They do not believe the assumptions behind evolution. When your eyes are open to examining the evidence yourself you will see the weakness of the evolution claim.

So next time you try to bash a Christian as not knowing anything, first see what they say about the subject.
And yes I do interpret Genesis as literal history as it is written in such a way. It starts the foundation of jewdo/christain reliegon and if a Christian can't take that as a fact, they can't take anything else in the bible as fact. It is important to understand why "we" believe in the things we do, Christianity is logical system and not something to that should be just "believed" in like the tooth fiery or "santa claws" (he did exist in 12th cen, so say that to your 5 yr then say he dead, lol >:-) )

p.s. There is no apple in the garden! we dont know wtf it looks like! so someone draw an apple instead, just be glad it wasn't a durian fruit.
Cheers

the 100 acids was an example shown minimum complexity. for any cell to function it needs to have certain mimimum level of functionality. Like how a mouse trap needs 4 parts to work, the base, latch, spring, trigger. If you take any part of theses away, the trap can not go off. And the same will apply to any cell. (well, I've heard some cells and degenerate so much that they are leaching off other cells to survive) Like in a car, if the cars doesn't have wheels, or doesn't have a cam shaft, or doesn't have a pistons then the car will not drive. There is a minimum level required for a cell, that was my argument for abiogenesis.

I've noticed you mention that shorter combinations can combine, and thats a big problem for evolution because you can't randomly mix senquences together because either they produce something which doesnt work,or they kill the chain like in left vs right handed proteins.

And example off the top of my head is hemoglobin, I have a memory hearing that it's is first generated as a ~1000 long protein string folded into a 3d shape. This shape has no functionality. Another protein then shaves off part of the 3d shape and you were left with ~700 proteins, this happens 4 times until you get the function red blood cell at 564 proteins. Now there are a few (6 i think, i am probably be wrong) variations of this which are genetic blood disorders.

My wife is calling me, good bye Virg.

hmmm interesting link, It will take me a while to read it. thank you.

I can't see how any amount of time can make something possible. If you extract back, the theory suggests chemical evolution of a "simple" cell. which even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein coding genes are required to be wholly operational for life to begin. The famous muller experament (in ~1957 I think) shows a chemical trap required to get proteins but in that shows the enormous problems of the information. For life, aka the simplest of self sustaining cells require all the proteins to be either left or right handed. If a left protein attaches to a right protein then the chain is terminated. all of the human body is right handed. The experiments also require that there be no water and no oxygen in the environment. DNA at 0 degrees break down in under 10,000 years and all the goo stories I've heard are "hot" pools where the proteins break down even faster. (at 100' I remember it being 90minues.) I remember reading about a scientist creating 2 of the RNA molecules in just under 13 steps which each step was then filtered because the process in each steps produces side products which are "fatal". e.g. left and right handed proteins. So saying there are long periods of time is actually harmful to the process of chemicals self assembling themselves. Since I am holiday and board out of my mind, I'll try and google for this book.

btw:
A resource I look at often is the website http://Creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers. that link contains alot of information many people just dont know about. They are a "christian" .website but it dosn't matter that you dont believe the christian stuff which is usually at the bottom of the webpages. Read about the science articles and come to your own conclusions they will show in science things in the different light and will make you think.

just a quick search of that site and i can quote this: which is the odds chemically of just 100 amino acids where the simplest known is 480 proteins.

But I'll will look at the book mention above, I just hope some of you people will read the things I said from the other side of the fence.

I am on the other side of the fence, a creationist.

Evolution does require alot of belief. Most people belief that evolution is just the changes of an organism, like the how the pepper moths in england with 2 colors or the beaks in finches. If that was true that would make me an evolutionist.

But evolution contains a half true which will make it every believing until to understand and break down it components.

For evolution to work you will need a selecting agent and a changing agent.
For me this is how I see Evolution.
Evol = Natural Selection + Mutation.

Now I've talked about this on /. before but no one is interested.
Both NS and Mutations are hostile to evolution. For evolution to work in the context of goo to you via zoo, it must have the capability to information.
With NS this will specialize the variation in the "creature" . e.g. all dogs comes from wolfs (evols & creationists agree on that) due to man's natural selection, we get Great Danes and chiwawas, it doesn't matter how many times the chiwawas breeds, you never get a great dane out of them. the information for being big has been bread out of them.

Thats why mutations are required in the formula. You need a changing agent. But the problem with mutations is that the vast majority of them are negative, with only a very few being positive for the host. and of those being positive none of them invovled increase in the dna, just disabling of functionality which just happen to a good outcome.
E.g. of good mutations which are actually mutations which disabled working functionality.(again thats the opposite way for evolution)
  westerners who can drink milk have a mutation which stops a gene normally being turned off as a baby.
  theres a beetle off a windy island off Italy somewhere where because there wings are disabled, they dont get blown out to see. (the main land bugs can fly)
  The really muscular cows in Europe. (of course NS in the wild would kill them off cause they need to humans to help give birth)

So I argree that Evolution should be taught, along with all it flaws about how it can't explain goo to you via zoo happens. because as of now it is being taught like it was a fact without all the flaws in the theory.
To summarize:
      Evol = NS + Mut.
      NS = fact but works against Evol
      Mutations is fact, but works in all known cases against evol (doesn't actually has to be bad mutations in rare cases)
      Evol is a half true story which means its a fabrication and shouldn't be used to darken the name of science.

Ask yourself does what I have written make sense to you. As I hope I have reached some people with understand as why I will not believe evol and why (some) creationists are not crazy nuttys and actually understand the issues at work here and come to there own conclusion and not what others say to believe.

I can just imagine how this will work,

I am truly sorry for your loss Miss Gottschalk, but your husband body was found by our flying vulture team. He was floating in the river and his left eye was eaten by one of our teammates.

So they assume an age based on the size / color of the star and then based on that assumption they will use the spin of the star as a guide to its age. This assumes that the older stars will always spin at different speeds from younger stars. Given that older stars will expand, and therefor be larger so will spin slower to keep it's angular momentum this raises the question

So how would they know the starting spin of the star?
if we have 2 "young" stars, 1 spins 1 per year, the other 1 per month, when they get old they will obviously spin at different speeds.

Also, does anyone know how long it takes the Sun to rotate? I remember it has 2% of the angular momentum of the solar system but the bulk of the mass,

(Warning, my christian troll views coming up, cover your hears if you don't like whats coming up)
Something to make you think:
Why does the Sun have 2% of the angular momentum if by the gas cloud theory says that it should be in the center of the solar system and therefor like a ballerina when it's arms are in, have the most angular momentum, but the Sun almost have none. the only theory I could think of is if the cloud wasn't spinning, but in that scenario, the planets would just fall into the Sun. Note: Angular momentum isn't effect by the size / mass of the Sun. The sun could be heavy or larger, the spin will be slower but the angular momentum would be the same.

I am waiting for rule 34.

http://xkcd.com/305/