Evolution has been Disproven

IIRC is if I recall correctly.It was the definition of genetic information that I'm talking about.We've had several attempts at getting anyone to define their terms as far as information, complexity etc goes. However, no one does. That includes Dempski and the like.We need a clear, precise definition; what is often called an operational definition. You could google that and see what you glean from it.

I disagree with this. The main reason that they are separate is the biological evolution deals with living things that we know possess the capabilities necessary for evolution to take place: imprefect replication in a selective environment.Since evolutionary like processess have been proven to be very powerful there are suggestions that chemicals (or at least things we would otherwise have a hard time as recognizing as alive might allow for conditions where evolutionary mechanisms might be allowed. However, since it is chemistry (not biology) that we are discussing paths which get to "real" life without "evolution" happening are also considered.If the research is involved with non-living things that don't undergo darwinian evolution it would not be biology. If it is not biology it is not in the area of biological evolution. They are simply separate.

Hey, where did that come from?Percy wasn't "accusing" you of cut-n-paste. He even said that abstracts are a reasonable thing to copy. He was asking that, due to the nature of the discussion in this thread and the lack of understanding of some of the posters that you try to help by simplifying it a bit.

I should have read this first.That is just what Percy was asking for. It's obvious that you have to use very, very short words for some people. If this post isn't simple enough then it is a clue that we have yet another hopeless case.

Of course, that makes sense.And it is why people, when they are speaking very carefully don't like to use the word "proven" inregards to any theory. There must always be some openness to new data that may force a change to the ideas.However, not being 100.00000% sure doesn't mean that we might not be waaaaay over 99 % sure. At some point it becomes a waste of resources to keep thinking that a particular idea is wrong. Every so often you may go back and think about the possibility a bit but you are almost cetainly wasting time unless there is some new evidence that suggests that a rethink is needed.

Your 'faith' in your alarm clock is not "blind" faith. In fact, if we carefully define our terms I think "trust" is a better word.You have a lot of real world evidence that the chances of your alarm clock blowing you through the roof is very, very small. You understand the lack of motive, the cost and risk of doing it. It is this evidence that allows you to trust the alarm clock.If you were a mobster with a contract out on you. You will be much less trusting. If you are a leader of Hamas you may well not trust cell phones. You have emperical evidence that there are dangers under those circumstances.

Springer, I don't recall that you've actually posted a fact yet. Did I miss it?Assertions without a foundation do not facts make.Since you are, apparently, a creationist perhaps you can give us a few objective facts to mull over?Of course, real science deals with all the facts but we'll just start with a few for now eh?