General Theory of Evolution

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Can you come up with an acceptable theory of creationism that would address everything that would be accepted by the scientific world?"
--I'm at a loss as to what it is you are trying to pin-point in your search for a acceptable 'theory of creationism'. Could you be more specific? What topic of study and specific phenomena do you need a theoretical explanation for?

​

--Mabye a new thread should be created for this query.

​

---

She wants something more than "Puff, God did it."

"She wants something more than "Puff, God did it."
--And I'd like to answer something reasonable rather than write an encyclopedia on such an enormously vague question. See my last post for what I'm looking for.------------------

Yes I did, and I will not settle for Poof the magic God created all the earth. In just seven days there was you and me. We lived in a garden and screwed up royally, and now we are here to ruin the lives' of scientists.Sorry could not resist.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

The only thing that is resonable to you is that POOF GOD DID IT. If anything other than God did it, is is WRONG and ILLOGICAL. Man, what a close-minded view.Now, before you go and misquote me, I am not saying that THERE WAS NO GOD WHO CREATED THE EARTH, just saying that there is no evidence that I have seen that has led me to conclude this is what happened.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"She wants something more than "Puff, God did it."
--And I'd like to answer something reasonable rather than write an encyclopedia on such an enormously vague question. See my last post for what I'm looking for.

​

---

What was "vague" about the question? All you have to do is say is how creationism works.

Creationism works like "Creatio ex nihilo" creation from nothing. I think the closest you can come to formulating how creation works, is to consider a decision / choice a creation event. A choice as per definition has no causes (nihilo) that force a particular outcome, but it has identities choosing an outcome. The work of creationism is then to find the decisive points in time at which man and the main kinds of organisms were in effect chosen to be, when it became a relative certainty there would be people. The evolution/formation of mankind largely being a certain aftereffect in relation to those few moments, like a rock falling to earth.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Anne, if you try your *mind* at reading the references to religion in Criozat's voluminous pages it does not appear that he is part of the "lunatic fringe" that Francis Crick sentences to a molecule yet the chages necessary in the evolutionary establishment are not forthcoming while it is the Creationists AND THIS GOD that seems to be keeping the pressure on this pressure cooker. Unfortunately 9-11 happened and it seems like the older generation miscalcuated on making all our kitches have microwaves. For me this devise was a "strange change" machine that I put a plastic square in, pluged in the "betty Crocker Oven light" and out came the SHAPE of a dinosaur. This is merely the word "reconstruction" and paleontology has not beetered. I understand some one in my town got BO CUE $ to invesitage PREHISTORIC BEHAVIOR but if we can not even get the idea that a rock could have more information on this earth than a virus that has less because its host has more how can you be so certain that the bread is not the rock? I used to play BOTH papar siscors and rock as well as the animal vegatable mineral game. NOw which combination when not the land of the lost is it not the generalized 3-D. That is not a riddle. I had an answer that was not a tiantothere horn but even the simple scanning of data was disallowed to me before your love is a reference to GOD infront not yours or mine, if only Kelly could have it sung right. She was better the 2nd time in this regard. Sincerely, Brad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Creationism works like "Creatio ex nihilo" creation from nothing. I think the closest you can come to formulating how creation works, is to consider a decision / choice a creation event. A choice as per definition has no causes (nihilo) that force a particular outcome, but it has identities choosing an outcome. The work of creationism is then to find the decisive points in time at which man and the main kinds of organisms were in effect chosen to be, when it became a relative certainty there would be people. The evolution/formation of mankind largely being a certain aftereffect in relation to those few moments, like a rock falling to earth.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

​

---

Meaningless in this context since it is not very scientific.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-01-2002]

meaning is full-- entropy is not irreversibility. The russian Gladyshev knew this and added an extra entropy term to Gibbs' formalism, whether logical or not I understood the post so what is meaning does not mean "owning" up to it. If I know that there are aliens on mars and this is not a TV show I can REFER without the connotation being the denotation though we know even without the equations that it is the other way around. think twice before you use any implicable double c/e jepordy the standard needs to be higher bar than a Georgia politcian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
meaning is full-- entropy is not irreversibility. The russian Gladyshev knew this and added an extra entropy term to Gibbs' formalism, whether logical or not I understood the post so what is meaning does not mean "owning" up to it. If I know that there are aliens on mars and this is not a TV show I can REFER without the connotation being the denotation though we know even without the equations that it is the other way around. think twice before you use any implicable double c/e jepordy the standard needs to be higher bar than a Georgia politcian.

---

Now, this is a prime example of something which is totally meaningless.

dear Syamsu,You say:
"I didn't know this, but still I consider proteins a resource, and not a trait, because that is consistent with how those words are most commonly defined as far as I know.I say:
DNA specifies --among other things-- proteins and thus they are traits as well. How are these things commonly defined then?You say:
Also someone told me that it was proven on the molecular level that the assembly of DNA follows from the action of the DNA molecule, and not from the action of the resources on the DNA.I say:
Probably this someone meant the hybridisation of two complementary DNA strands. They indeed hybridise to from the double DNA helix. The duplication of one strand to yield the complementary strand needs DNA-specified enzymes, and something to prime.You say:
Selection of "naked" RNA, I was looking for something like that, thanks for your comments.I say:
No worries.Best wishes,
Peter

Oh I see now..., yes a trait then.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Yep, and if you want another example of sheer meaningless then look at the reply to my post message 37 I think.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

"The only thing that is resonable to you is that POOF GOD DID IT. If anything other than God did it, is is WRONG and ILLOGICAL. Man, what a close-minded view."
--I agree it is, so you should be weary of your prejudicial mind, calm down, and appreciate the fact that I do not in the least follow this line of reasoning."Now, before you go and misquote me, I am not saying that THERE WAS NO GOD WHO CREATED THE EARTH, just saying that there is no evidence that I have seen that has led me to conclude this is what happened."
--Great, that's nice, we must agree to disagree, however I have asked that you supply me with a considerable proposal for supportive discussion pertaining to your accusations for the non-existence of a 'theory of creation'. See my last posts for more detail.--Careful with your attitude, it would not be a complement if I confused you with nos.------------------

"What was "vague" about the question? All you have to do is say is how creationism works. "
--The methodology of creationism? Since you have asked this on an individual level, I simply see that, IMO, creationism implies theism. There are no more details other than that. If you'd like to go more in depth and see what I think about a specific finding and what it indicates about the history of the earth, life, solar system, etc. Delve deeper.------------------