Comments on Intelligent design

Thats a good point Tim;ie that the creator must be outside his creation.
For something not to have a beginning or end, it must be infinite:time matter, energy etc.And how can something create infinity?
Vick , 06.02.2005, 8:15pm link
To me it's such a simple and obvious point, yet people like football man (are you still there?) still go on about some designer existing outside of time and space (presumably without thinking too hard about what complete utter bullshit they're saying).
Tim [Home], 07.02.2005, 12:22am link
1st point: It doesn't seem absurd to me. It's certainly feasible that everything in the observable universe was created by a Creator outside the observable universe. And if that is the correct explanation for how we all got here, why am I suddenly required to answer the much deeper question of how the Creator got here/there?

2d point: Have you ever heard of hyperspace, or higher dimensions as in string theory? And does not the Bible imply that God is above/beyond time?
ANONYMOUS , 07.02.2005, 3:23am link
There is nothing OUTSIDE the universe. The universe is everything.
Higher dimensions, hyperspace, whatever, are all still part of what is known as "the universe".
Surely that's not too difficult to understand?
Tim [Home], 07.02.2005, 10:34am link
Dear Anonny
I want to say something regarding your first point;
Here you are, talking about whats outside"the universe".
We still don't know where,but more likely, if this universe ends and therefore has a outside.And like tim said, the universe implies "everything"

Why assume there is something ?Why not just wait and medidate on the new scientific discoveries as they appear?
Why believe in something not based in factor reality,totally outside the world of human expierience and discovery?
Is it because you want to believe in something?

Tim,what do you think of this;? There is no time ,there is time, there is matter, and yet it is only Energy (E=mc2),but there is also anti-matter/energy.So basically we exist and don't exist.There are no edges , nothing stops at a given point- it transforms-,but basically everything must be infinite .
Vick , 07.02.2005, 7:23pm link
Brother Tim, do you miss me? I'll have a look at your website once in a while when I'm bored or need to annoy the hell out of brother jeff.
Can you please enroll in a mathematical logic course? Space is mult-dimensional -- possibly 10-dimensional according to string theory. Why is not possible for a being to exist in these dimensions?
How is logical the universe is everything? If you lived 500 years ago, your logic would be saying that the earth is everything. What would constitute a proof that such a being exists? Is your mind open to this possibility? Or are you as closed minded as brother jeff?

Congrats to the New England Patriots, the greatest football team of all time.
football man , 08.02.2005, 12:33am link
I know that there are very probably dimensions above the four we are generally aware of, but presumably they are all conncected (like the lower ones are) - you talk as if they could be entirely seperate places where "higher beings" can live.
And you've completely missed the point - they'd STILL be part of what was known as THE UNIVERSE. The universe is everything. Including any other dimensions. The lot. Everything. That's what the universe is. Everything. Get it?
Tim [Home], 08.02.2005, 12:24pm link
That's where we disagree Tim. The universe is not everything. The universe and everything in it is a local projection of an infinite intelligence. You, and I and even the mighty brother Jeff are local projections of an infinite intelligence. As finite beings, I'm not sure even mathematically, that we can detect such a being. However this being does exist, and all the life we see here on earth came from it. As much as you don't want to admit because of your preconceived notions of a creator, all life we see shows signs on an intelligent design.
I'm not a fundie (in brother Jeff's terms) and thanks for not calling me one.
football man , 09.02.2005, 12:03am link
Jeff's a great guy who's been dealing with fundies for some time (he used to be one) - but as you haven't even stated that you follow a religion as such (or mentioned the word "God") I guess you're not one - at least not in that sense. You have been rather obnoxiously arrogant though, which is what pissed Jeff off.

I've found various definitions of the term universe, for example:
"All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole." and
"everything that exists anywhere".

I'd go with the second, which implies infinity, rather than just what is observable to us.
So the question remains the same - what created "everything". Yeah, it's an absurd question - as Vick said earlier, how can something create infinity?

This site wasn't intended to discuss meta-physics but to point out the negative effects of religious beliefs and the impossibility of the specific deities that religious people worship (although I stand by my statement that there can be no "universal creator").
Tim [Home], 09.02.2005, 2:14am link
Whether or not there is a divine creator is not a scientific question but rather a question of faith. It is simply not testable by empirical means. Intelligent design (ID) proponents look at the gaps in evolutionary theory and say, this can't account for the complexity we see in the world around us therefore it could only be the work of an intelligent agent. But this logical leap comes only from their own religious belief, not through the rigorous application of scientific principles. To my knowledge, there is only one scientific paper, published by Stephen Meyer in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239), that proposes ID as an alternative to evolutionary theory. This paper was later disavowed by the journal on the grounds that it lacked proper peer review. Whatever you say about intelligent design, it is not science and has no place in the science classroom.
James [Home], 09.02.2005, 4:32pm link
That's a preety good comment there James.That had my brain working for a moment.And Tim,if-like you say-the site was not set up to discuss metaphysics,rather to point out the negative effects that religion has on the world,then thats a massive can of worms you'd be opening. Opinions, attitudes ,passions.It would be hard to convince believers .Even if you could ,it would be even harder to get them to swallow their pride and to admit they had been fooled BY THEMSELVES for so long.
Hey football man!What's happened to you ?Have you seen the Buddha or something ?Wheres all that cursing and anger?Youre starting to get better.
Vick , 09.02.2005, 6:06pm link
FM said, "That's where we disagree Tim. The universe is not everything."
That's true; our universe is but one in a multiverse, which we know must exist because quantum computing is possible. Put simply, subatomic particles in our universe are interacting with subatomic particles in other unvierses to make the calculations possible.
FM said, "The universe and everything in it is a local projection of an infinite intelligence."
No, it isn't. There is no evidence of any intelligence at work in the multiverse. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show me for evaluation.
FM said, "You, and I and even the mighty brother Jeff are local projections of an infinite intelligence."
No, we are not. Again, there is nothing in science to bear out this assertion. Either show evidence, or stop making it.
The universe is most likely a brane of the multiverse, which is most likely 11-dimensional. What we experience as our 4-dimensional universe (I am here treating time and space as separate entities) is in fact a curvature on an 11-dimensional brane. At least, that hypothesis seems most likely, and Michio Kaku reckons will have the proof by the end of this decade.
FM said, "As finite beings, I'm not sure even mathematically, that we can detect such a being."
Anything that exists does so within the laws of physics; as such, a mathematical proof of god is possible. Care to show me your numbers?
Again, you're making a baseless assertion. What you believe is irrelevant; what the evidence shows is all that matters.
FM said, "However this being does exist, and all the life we see here on earth came from it."
Well, that's completely false. Apart from a total breakdown in reasoning--how did you jump from the existence of this infinite anthropomorphic deity to her creating life/!--we know from observing evolution that there is no design involved. The watchmaker is truly blind. A creator would never have made so many false starts, so many design flaws, so many engineering mistakes. Life is entirely consistent with how it would be if there were no designer--as is the universe as a whole.
FM said, "As much as you don't want to admit because of your preconceived notions of a creator, all life we see shows signs on an intelligent design."
No, it most certainly doesn't. Quite the opposite, in fact; all life on Earth is a clear indication that no intelligence whatsoever was involved in its arising.
Just for laughs, please answer the following:
Why would a creator litter the genome with junk tandem DNA?
What kind of sadist creates both katydids and the digger wasp? (Or the lion and the gazelle?)
Why are octopus eyes more efficient than human eyes? The only rational conclusion is that god must prefer cephalopods to homo sapiens. (Similarly, this god must also prefer beetles and arachnids, as they've been around longer, and are more proficient at occupying their ecological niche.)
Why would any creator go to such lengths to hide her existence? Is she shy?
Why did she bother with the appendix?
I've got a hundred more questions like this, but I'll give FM a chance to respond to these, first.
Tony Kehoe [Email], 11.02.2005, 11:10am link
Tim wrote, "Whether or not there is a divine creator is not a scientific question but rather a question of faith."
No it isn't. The claim that god exists is a science one, and can be examined scientifically. That's what physics, chemistry, and biology are for.
Tony Kehoe [Email], 11.02.2005, 11:11am link
I didn't write that! Thanks for the comments though. Football man is one of those people who thinks that he "knows" things after taking big jumps to far away conclusions, without having to bother about irritating things like evidence.

I'm rather more up on my arts than sciences - maybe my terminology is wrong, but I still say that the term "universe" covers higher dimensions (perhaps "multiverse" is a better way to put it) - i.e. everything that exists anywhere. Something that by basic logic cannot be created.
Tim [Home], 11.02.2005, 1:08pm link
So quantum computing is possible Tony? If that was true then RSA and elliptic curve (don't think you have any clue what this is )encryption would no longer be secure. Sorry Tony, quantum computing is not yet possible.
Your out of league here ,however I like your arrogance but you can't back it up.
No evidence of an intelligence operating in the universe? This is n't even worthy of a response. To be nice, I'll give you a couple of examples, gravitational constant K and e= mc^2. As for evidence and logic Tim, you haven't shown me anything.
As I have asked you before, take a course in mathematical logic at the 3rd year university level. Your arguments are bogus and I can see right through them. Learn how to solve a quadratic equation.
football man , 12.02.2005, 12:30am link
Tim, Tony construct a truth table for the proposition, P V (Q & R).

When is an implication true, ie. P --> Q ?
If P is false, is the implication true?
What about a biconditional P<--> Q?

What is a universal quantifier? Give me an example of mathematical statement using one?
Are you still awake ?
What I want to demonstrate is that you Tony and Jeff don't understand mathematical logic. If you are still awake Jeff, please answer these in the next half-hour.

LOL!! You guys are logical?
football man , 12.02.2005, 2:49am link
FM, why are you so desperate to try to prove your supreme intelligence? What point are you trying to make? Nothing you have said proves that there is a universal creator, just that the universe "works", which we know due to the fact we're here talking about it.
As for logic - again you seem to be trying to prove that you're smart by thinking on too higher level. All I mean is that certain things are logically impossible (philosophically not mathematically). Spherical cubes. 2+2=5. Universal creators.

Like Brother Jeff (who sends his regards) I'm bored with this. You are only here to annoy people, so I'm going to ignore you (until you decide to post sensibly on a topic I've actually written about). If you think you've "won", well, if it makes you feel good about yourself, fine.
Tim [Home], 12.02.2005, 8:59pm link
Football Man wrote: "So quantum computing is possible Tony? If that was true then RSA and elliptic curve (don't think you have any clue what this is )encryption would no longer be secure. "
Ignoring the ad hominem attack for a moment, quantum computing is indeed possible; David Deutch at Oxford University has done it.
FM wrote, "Sorry Tony, quantum computing is not yet possible.
Your out of league here ,however I like your arrogance but you can't back it up. "
Why do you waste so much time with insults?
If you think I'm out of my league, you're going to have to explain to David Deutch how come he can do quantum computing.
FM wrote, "No evidence of an intelligence operating in the universe? This is n't even worthy of a response. To be nice, I'll give you a couple of examples, gravitational constant K and e= mc^2."
Those are not any evidence whatsoever for an intelligence.
FM wrote, "As for evidence and logic Tim, you haven't shown me anything.
As I have asked you before, take a course in mathematical logic at the 3rd year university level. Your arguments are bogus and I can see right through them. Learn how to solve a quadratic equation."
Why don't you learn some logic first? Asserting that E=mc^2 is evidence of an intelligence is like claiming that an intelligence must exist because yeast makes bread rise. It's a non sequitur.
Tony Kehoe [Email], 13.02.2005, 9:52am link
PS: Fm, I understand mathematical logic better than you do.
Tony Kehoe [Email], 13.02.2005, 9:52am link
Tony Kehoe if you understand mathematical logic better than I do, then answer the questions I've asked Tim and the mighty brother Jeff.
These are questions I've asked my first year students taking a course in logic and set theory.
David Deutch will be a billionaire very soon. No encryption methodology will be safe if this is true.
Just to help you out, I'll tell you when a conditional statement P --> Q is true. If the consequent is true, the statement is true. If the antecedent is false , then the statement is true. For example, if evolution is a fact then 6 is a prime number. Since the antecedent, i.e. evolution is a fact is a false statement, it doesn't matter what the consequent is.
Learn so logic? LOL!The fact you can't answer the questions, proves to me you are not logical.
Intelligence in the universe?
What about the gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2? If this were to change by even a fraction of %, the universe would be much different that we observe today. HOw about Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s? Do you need anymore Tony?

I'm bored with you , Tim and Jeff.

As for Jeff and TIm, you set up this website to antagonize and be little people who have religious faith. You were looking for a fight you and got more than you bargained for. You are no better than religious fundies' out there because you claim to have the ultimate truth just like they do.
I've debunked evolution on the grounds that it is probabilitically impossible.Mighty Jeff, thanks for the link with abiogenesis probability calculations. The number of permutations have been reduced from 10^100 to 10^40. Do you have ideal how large 10^40 is? This is more than the number of atoms in the universe.
What I've proven, is that you guys are not logical and that both of
you desperately need some training in logical and critical thinking.
Go and register for some courses in probability theory, mathematical statisitics and a n elementary course in logic.
Goodbye!! I have no more time for this.
football man , 14.02.2005, 12:35am link
FM, you keep irritatingly popping back here despite saying you've had enough.
Your self-centred arrogance seems to be preventing you understanding what people are saying.
When I said that a universal creator/designer is logically impossible I'm refering to philosophical logic, which is a matter of language and defenition, not mathematics.
So you know a few formulas and stuff. They work. How does that prove that there HAS to be a creator/designer?

Sure I ridicule people with religious beliefs. It helps to relieve the frustration of dealing with them. There is a more serious issue though - people with such beliefs tend to want everyone else to be forced to follow thier mythical deities rules, which is a problem for people without such beliefs (and for people with from different faiths).
Tim [Home], 14.02.2005, 4:29pm link
yeah and when your in hell still worshiping darwin i'll be with the lord looking down and laughing at you in agaony you dickweeds ha ha ha!
J-K , 17.02.2005, 11:08pm link
FM: If you're bored, get lost. I'm not going to be drawn into your game. The fact remains that your arguments are weak, shoddy, and lacking intellectual rigour. All you do is call people names (ad hominem attack) and commit other logical fallacies. If you hate our company so much, why torture yourself? There are plenty of other websites that pander to your delusions. Go try them out for a change, and leave the rationalists and critical thinkers alone.
Tony Kehoe [Email], 18.02.2005, 1:49pm link
How a thinking, knowing, all powerful loving etc. God could come out of nothing is certainly more a mystery than trying to explain the cause of the big bang. To answer an unlikely mystery (like existence of space/time/anything) with an even more unlikely mystery, just to have an answer, flies in the face of reasoning. And the explanation for the "big bang" will definitely involve math when discovered-as does everything else in the natural world. God's existsnce can't be explained mathematically. If it doesn't involve math it ain't a science!

Also scientists havent figured out all the trivial details of evolution - and never will! Remind me again how that somehow proves god exists and is the author of the Bible, etc.
eX0rciS+ [Email], 19.02.2005, 2:27am link
Hey, J-K!

That's not very Christian of you!
Yahoo , 23.02.2005, 4:13am link


DR. FUNKENSTEIN [Email], 23.02.2005, 11:53pm link
Well, don't know what Dr Fis on but it looks like good stuff.

Just like to say that while I agree that religion is bullshit, Tim, you may be going ahead of yourself in claiming that there is no possibility whatsoever that the divine exists.

It's always a good idea to bow to people who know the most, and Prof Stephen Hawking is regarded as a bit of an authority. If you look at his work, you will find that he does not discount the concept of God. Einstein, for that matter was a Christian who did not believe that God played dice with the universe. I would be wary of claiming truths that finer minds (with all respect) than yours have fallen short of declaring.
john durkin [Email][Home], 24.02.2005, 12:37am link
John - I suppose it depends on your defenition of "the divine". Using my description of the term "universe" (the term itself may not be quite correct) I don't see how there can be a creator, but perhaps on a lower level?

I haven't read any Stephen Hawking for a while, although the phrase "What place then, a creator?" from A Breif History of Time sticks in my mind.
Tim [Home], 27.02.2005, 10:27pm link
"There is a probably apocryphal story, that when Laplace was asked by Napoleon, how God fitted into this system, he replied, 'Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.' I don't think that Laplace was claiming that God didn't exist. It is just that He doesn't intervene, to break the laws of Science. That must be the position of every scientist. A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene."

The above is a quote from one of the lectures on Hawkings website.

Also, it is generally accepted by physicists that the universe had a beginning. Mention that fact to any ten year old and see what response you get.
john durkin [Email][Home], 02.03.2005, 12:28am link
But does a "beginning" have to be a "creation"?

I'm sure the quote "what place then, a creator?" came from a section on the curvature of space-time, meaning that the universe would have no beginning and no end, it would simply "be", although I can't really remember - will have to check.
Tim [Home], 07.03.2005, 9:27pm link
But does a "beginning" have to be a "creation"?

Absolutely not. Hawking has a theory about it, involving a concept of "imaginary time" and a conclusion that the beginning of the universe was very much like the north pole - a special place, but a special place pretty much like other places in the world. The theory would do away with the need for a creator because there was no point in the history or pre-history of the universe where the laws of physics did not hold.

But this is just a theory, albeit as attractive to atheists as the theory of the singularity where the laws of physics breaks down is attractve to theists.

The reason, I think, that Hawking still talks about God without being dismissive, is as a gentle reminder that we are not in a position to test these theories yet and that they will remain theories for a long time yet.

In the mean time, debates such as this will continue to generate considerably more heat than light.
john durkin [Email][Home], 08.03.2005, 12:31am link
Hey, candle this one by the pope:

Monastica est bullshit. Deus est a recubo. Jesus eram a simulator. Suus totus fake quod a radix of pointless patientia.

Thats my reading for today!!

Sierra , 08.03.2005, 9:08pm link
i was just wondering. maybe you cant prove there is a god or how he got there or if he was created, but if in this universe/dimension/whatever we have laws that are constant, (like the law that states that information has to come from information, and matter cant be created) then isnt the only explanation for how we got here that there must be another place/dimension without those laws that we dont know about, and that using evolution(but im no expert on evolution) it is impossible to arrive at any conclusion that solves the problem of how anything got here using only laws from this universe? i mean, if its impossible to get something from nothing its impossible right? no amount of time is going to change the laws of physics. and just because we have no evidence of this other dimension doesnt mean its not logical to think there might be one, i mean, we are pretty limited in what we can detect even now. its like if you were in a car that can only pick up am frequencies, does that mean there is no fm frequency? i dont know, im just putting forward ideas, i dont mean to offend anyone.
just wondering , 13.03.2005, 6:15am link
also i discovered this on a website and it made me think, perhaps it will make you think too.

"A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?"
just wondering , 13.03.2005, 6:48am link
"perhaps it will make you think too"

Yeah, it makes me realise why Tim set up this website and why people like Sierra exist. He might be bonkers, but not THAT bonkers.
john durkin [Email][Home], 15.03.2005, 1:18pm link
im looking at this point of wether their is a god or not from a scientific view. im not trying to force a religion upon anyone, i respect all beliefs but that doesn’t mean i agree with them. but if you dont believe their is a god doesn’t that mean if you want to accept any theory of how the universe came into being and how life arose your only choice would be to accept evolution? and thats fine, but looking at it from a scientific point of view evolution is fundamentally flawed. there are many problems with the theory but one in particular is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which simply put is a law that states everything is decaying. everyone dies, everything rots, rusts, falls apart over time. you could say that humanity as a species hasn’t but thats because we have worked to better ourselves. you have to work against the second law of thermodynamics in order to prevent its outcome. thats why things left to their natural course will eventually decay. but evolution states the exact opposite, claiming over time nature evolved us from single celled organisms into complex beings, an obvious improvement but with no apparent catalyst, therefore suggesting it happened by itself. but the second law prohibits any natural occurrence from doing this. Evolutionists claim that their theory is above this law and it is not applicable to evolution. but there are no naturally occurring examples of this today, so why should evolution be any different? apart from this i found 54 scientific facts disproving the Big Bang evolutionary theory about the origin of matter and the stars, and many other flaws in evolution at

once again im not throwing anything religious at you guys, nothing but scientific facts from this universe. im simply suggesting that based on the inexorable laws of this universe their is no physically possible way for us to have gotten here, and that their must be something else out their. but im open-minded and if u can show me an answer to all the contradictions in evolution shown on that web page and then show me a means of life coming about in the complex and ordered way that it did without using the idea of an intelligence behind it, then i may just stop believing in a god. but until then it seems only logical to me, but we all have different opinions.
just wondering , 16.03.2005, 12:08am link

I'm an atheist (for an accurate definition of an atheist see the thread entitled 'Some Basics') and I do not belive implicitly in the big bang theory or evolution. These are just scientific theories which provide the most reasonable explanation for how we came to exist given the level of knowledge we have to date. As scientific knowledge advances, so existing theories will change.

If we were created by another entity which we are not currently aware of, why think
of it as something to be worshipped? After all, it will be just another lifeform,
albeit one we cannot yet understand because our knowledge of science has not
advanced far enough.

Regarding your god, what sort of thing would create something as complex as our
world, populate it with all types of creatures and plants, create an entire
eco-system and then sit back and watch that creation slowly destroy itself?
You go ahead and worship a monster, us atheists will all think for you.
Mr_y , 16.03.2005, 9:47am link
just wondering

The second law of thermodynamics relates to physics not biology and is more accurately stated as follows:

"The second law is a straightforward law of physics with the consequence that, in a closed system, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with — some is always wasted. This means that a perpetual motion machine is impossible."

The website where this quote was taken from can be found at the following link:

The second law of thermodynamics is easily proven, because a hot cup of tea in a hot room will gradually cool and not get hotter.

The proliferation of antibiotic resistant superbugs in our hospitals indicates stronger bacteria are able to resist drugs long enough to create even more resistance in the next generation of bacteria. What is this if not evolution?
Mr_y , 16.03.2005, 4:17pm link
To say that organisms and DNA are not complex things is just ubsurd. DNA is what life is, it holds the keys. There are many things in nature that are very very complex. the cambrian explosion is also something in evolution that is unconfirmed. this is a period in time where no fossils of transitional species could be found. darwin said they would be in the future but to no avail. the explosion in that era of new life forms is unexplainable and easily explained by the theists. I myself do not consider myself in any religion. i merely ask questions of everything and keep my mind open to new ideas and research any information i encounter. There are also problems with archaeopteryx. prolly not spelled right but spelling is not the issue. this was looked at by darwin as convincing evidence that a reptile/bird lifeform was living. After further inspection it has been found that it was merely a bird with no ties to reptiles. the research in the last 20 years has yielded many new findings and disprovings of darwins explanation of life. i think the reason you are unable to find a better reason for life existence, you might want to reasearch and know a smidge about what your talking about. i am only 17 and you have displayed to me that i have more knowledge on this subject than you and you are the one with a blog. i also smoke weed and drink, just to let you people know, partiers have minds too. *just my thoughts*
j-cyn [Email], 16.03.2005, 11:54pm link
"The proliferation of antibiotic resistant superbugs in our hospitals indicates stronger bacteria are able to resist drugs long enough to create even more resistance in the next generation of bacteria. What is this if not evolution?" in answer to Mr_y question, this is not evolution, nor is it macro-evolution. Some bacteria already had the resistance. For instance, when scientists at the University of Alberta revived bacteria from members of the Franklin expedition who perished in the Artic nearly 150 years ago, they found some of the bacteria were resistant to antibiotics such as clindamycin and cefoxitin – both of which were developed more than a century after the men died. In other words, these bacteria had an inherited resistance – the information for resistance was already in the genes. When antibiotics are used in such instances, the non-resistant bacteria die, leaving the resistant ones. But no new information has been introduced into the system. For evolution in the molecules-to-man sense to occur, there must be a mechanism for information that did not previously exist to arise from non-information. No one has ever observed such a phenomenon occurring. This is inconsistent with "macro-evolution" – the belief that one kind of animal (such as a fish) changed progressively into another (such as a bird), by gaining the information for things such as lungs, legs and feathers which did not previously exist. Some bacteria directly transfer their resistance to others. Scientists have observed an amazing process in bacteria in which a loop of DNA (information), called a plasmid, is transferred from one bacterium to another. Thus information that enables bacteria to become resistant to a substance can be transferred to a non-resistant organism. Once again, however, the information already existed – no new information arose from matter. Information in this instance is just transferred around. This cannot, therefore, provide the opposite of the necessary information-gaining mechanism needed for molecules-to-man evolution. There are a number of instances of bacteria becoming resistant through mutations (inherited copying mistakes). But, when examined closely, all such mutations appear to be losses of information. For example, H. pylori bacteria (thought to cause some stomach ulcers) can become resistant to the antiobiotic metronidazole because a mutation in the DNA of the bacterium causes it to lose the ability to produce an enzyme. A similar situation occurs with the bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis (the cause of TB). Penicillin resistance can occur in bacteria because of a mutational breakdown of a mechanism that controls the production of an anti-penicillin enzyme. Though resistant, the bacteria are weakened through enzyme over-production. For evolution to occur there needs to be a gain in information, which is not relevant in this issue. So the law of thermodynamics upholds in the case of bacteria, and it remains a flaw in the theory of evolution. I suggest for anyone who is not convinced to check out these two sites: and
no longer wondering , 17.03.2005, 9:17am link
In answer to Mr_y. questions on religion, first of all I want to point out that it is entirely up to you to believe what you want, and I do not wish to seem as if I am preachy or forcing something upon you that you do not agree with. However you did ask the question and I will endeavor to answer it as best I can. As far as your assessment that scientific theories change over time I completely agree, and that is why I cannot trust them. I trust unchangeable science, like the physical laws of this universe, but as far as the theories of evolution are concerned I could never be contempt. A thousand years ago the common belief was that the world was flat, and just because everyone believed that it didn’t make it correct. But they were limited in what they could deduce about the world around them and therefore only accepted what their five senses showed them. Today we may think that we have progressed enough to make valid judgments about our existence here, but when so many flaws can be presented in the only explanation using our physical minds and tools as to how we got here it makes you wonder about how reliable the theory is. Is the assessment of the laws of the universe I have concluded that their must be an intelligent designer behind the complexity of this universe and its creation in the first place.

As for your questions regarding God sitting back and watching it all go to pieces I believe there is a valid explanation for that if you look at things from my point of view. I am a Lutheran Christian now and I believe in the Bible as the word of God. Many regard religion as a trap for simple-minded people to fall into, so the church can make money off them, and this is sadly true in many cases. But as far as choosing a religion I believe in one that has no strings attached. Lutheran is the only religion where all you need to do to be saved is believe in Jesus. You don’t need to pay the church million or work off your sins in Purgatory, it is a simple acceptance of God and your willingness to abide by his laws. Now I mean no offence to any other religious types that may read this but it is simply my point of view based on the facts. Other religions proposed the world sat on the back of an elephant or things similar to that, but the Bible states that the Earth is suspended in space, and this was in the age when people believed the world was flat. And now science has proved it true. There are so many noted occurrences in the Bible that explain things today that evolutionists are still puzzled over or have not provided a concrete explanation for. Therefore I have put my trust in the Bible as a book of truth. In doing this I also must then accept what the Bible tells me as a history book, that the world is decaying because of mans sin. He is not simply ‘sitting back’ but He left the Earth in our care and we are responsible for its ultimate destruction. As for worship, that can be simply talking to God, and if u believe He exists why not talk to him? You are entitled to believe there is no God, but I think the evidence stands for itself, and that there is an eternal being out there that does care for us, and wants us to love him willingly. You can reject or accept him, the choice is yours.
no longer wondering , 17.03.2005, 9:21am link
re your microbiology. What you are syaing is not evolution is classic darwininan evolution. The bugs had a latent property, which was not tested until antimicrobial therapy was used. At that point the bugs without the genes for resistance were killed off : ergo survival of the fittest. You are talking more along the lines of Lamarck..well, sort of!
Yahoo , 17.03.2005, 11:59pm link
Take that Tim!! Thank you no longer wondering.
Mr X , 18.03.2005, 12:38am link
Evolution refuted:

"Occam's Razor is a scientific principle which says that when faced with two theories, we should always choose the simplest theory. Evolution theory requires billions of years of chemical reactions, environmental effects, and genetic mutations. Creation theory simply says "God did it". Creation theory is obviously simpler, therefore Occam's Razor demands that we must select Creation theory on scientific grounds."

"The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. It states that complexity cannot be spontaneously created, so it is impossible for natural processes to create a complex organism from a simple organism!"


"The entropy of a living organism can't decrease."

"The creation of complexity requires the destruction of entropy."

"The second law of thermodynamics applies to spontaneous events, but not to the deliberate acts of man (or deity). That's why humans can build a complex structure but natural processes can't."
Mr X , 18.03.2005, 12:53am link
Once again I would like to make it clear that I am not trying to impose upon anyone’s beliefs because I truly believe we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I urge you to be open-minded when taking into account the evidence. In response to Yahoos statement about 'survival of the fittest' I am questioning the very idea that it is a valid function of the world today and in the past. For instance take the example of the meerkat. These mongoose-like animals from the dry regions of southern Africa will postpone meals to help with the baby-sitting, and will stay home so their family and friends can go out to feed. Helpful animals? Whatever happened to the evolutionary idea of 'survival of the fittest'? And what about the helpful 'watchman' bird that lets out a loud squawk when it sees a hawk approaching? All the neighbouring flocks are known to fly off quickly, which confuses the advancing predator. Yet the vigilant alarm-caller puts itself in extreme danger by its conspicuousness. Its give-away squawk may make it an instant target for attack, while those who heed its alarm get away and survive. Helpful birds? That seems contrary to 'survival of the fittest' too. The animal kingdom abounds with examples of helpful animals ('animal altruism' it's called). Whales may support a sick member of their pod, or refuse to leave a wounded or distressed member. Monkeys will pick through the fur of other monkeys to clean off fleas and other parasites. A honeybee may sting you if you go near its hive, thereby ending its life in an attempt to protect the colony. Wolves and wild dogs bring back food to members of the pack who have taken no part in the hunt. In controlled experiments, researchers found that when rats and monkeys learned to press a lever to obtain food, the animals would slow their rate of pressing the lever if the lever also sent an electric shock to a nearby rat or monkey. Can evolution explain this caring behaviour? After all, evolutionary theory states that 'those who do not struggle to survive and reproduce will be wiped out in the ruthless competition known as natural selection'. Charles Darwin's explanation of evolution by natural selection, or 'survival of the fittest', promoted the idea that individuals having any advantage over others, however slight, 'would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind'. Green insects which feed on green leaves, and mottled-grey bark-feeders which sit on mottled-grey tree bark, will be more difficult for a bird to notice and capture than would insects of a more visible colour. So animals with any advantage are more likely to survive and reproduce. This seems to be a sound and sensible observation. But Darwin went further. He also taught that the slightest variation which harmed the individual would be eradicated: '... we may feel sure', he said, 'that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest.' While a do not dispute the idea of natural selection, I do not agree by any means it is associated with evolution, but that is another subject. However, why are there so many helpful animals if Darwin's theory is correct? Altruistic animals expend energy helping others with no direct advantage to themselves. Some put their lives in danger to help or care for others. What would cause a porpoise to waste enormous energy caring for the body of its stillborn calf until the body rots away? Surely such useless expenditure of energy on something completely unproductive would have been eradicated during the porpoise's alleged evolution, if Darwin was correct. What about the baboon that helps another in a fight? What about zebras which turn towards an attacker to protect the foals in the herd, putting themselves in danger instead of running to escape? And what about the meerkat I mentioned earlier, who will waste energy caring for young who may not even be its own? Evolutionists have seen the problems. Helpful animals seem to defy Darwin's theory. Some evolutionists have tried to come up with explanations. In 1962, Wynne-Edwards put forward the idea that altruism evolved 'for the good of the group', or 'for the good of the species'. The idea is that groups with altruists — helpful or caring animals — do better than groups of selfish animals, so the altruistic groups endure better. But evolutionists admit flaws in this idea. What if a 'selfish' mutant individual arose in a group of altruists, and was able to avoid the cost of being helpful while still benefiting from the group's altruism? Evolutionists admit that as this 'selfish gene' spread through the group, 'the whole system would then break down'. Another theory was proposed — the theory of 'kin selection'. This theory tries to take into account that most beneficiaries of altruistic behaviour are relatives of the 'good Samaritan' animal. In its basic form, this theory states that 'a brother or sister shares as many of your genes (half) as a child, so that in helping a sister or brother to survive or reproduce you are helping to perpetuate your own genes (or, to put it another way, making a gain in genetic fitness) as much as if you protect your own child.' But evolutionists admit flaws in this idea too. There is hardly gain in genetic fitness when the recipient of the altruistic act is an elderly brother, sister, or other relative that is unlikely to survive much longer anyway. And even if the net result to relatives is beneficial, what about the many examples of help given to non-relatives? There are instances where dolphins and whales have supported ill animals of a different species. In some cases dolphins have aided humans who were drowning. And those birds that squawk when they see an approaching hawk are warning every animal within earshot they are not counting how many genes they have in common with other birds and animals while the hawk closes in. Do evolutionists have an answer to this? Well, sort of, but they wouldn't win a debate with it. The idea is based on one suggested by Robert L. Trivers in 1971. It is called 'reciprocal altruism'. The idea of reciprocalism is that cross-species altruism, giving help to non-relatives, occurs because 'an animal helped now will be able to return aid at a later date'. The animals are supposed to be saying, 'I'll do you a favor now if you do me a favor in the future'. But isn't this exactly what Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest' said couldn't happen? The animals that are fittest are supposed to survive while the weak ones perish. What's a fit dolphin doing helping a drowning man or a helpless animal that is not even in its own species? And let us not forget the example of the meerkat. The honest answer is that the explanation for helpful animals cannot be found in a purposeless theory like evolution, but rather in understanding that God the Creator has placed the world's array of animals on earth for His glory and to fill particular roles in the planet's ecology. That some creatures should help others in maintaining that role is no surprise to those who know that God, not evolution, created life on earth. There are many more examples of flaws in the idea of, ‘survival of the fittest.’ At Once again I hope you will all remain open-minded on these topics but remember I do not wish to offend any beliefs through my presentation of the evidence.
no longer wondering , 18.03.2005, 9:16am link
I apologise for the long response, i just get going and dont seem to be able to stop when it comes to these subjects, even though im only 16!
no longer wondering , 18.03.2005, 9:20am link
Religion is Bullshit I think so I dont believe in it and I dont believe in god and that's my story AND i'm sticking to it
stiffmaster [Email], 25.03.2005, 4:07am link
ok, i just found it interseting, so many of my friends dont believe in God because they think you have to follow a religion purley by faith, but i hope that i have shown that there is more than enough scientific evidence that God (through science) has allowed us to see, and it all points towards God as a creator. the Bible says that there is no excuse for not coming to know God, because the world is full of evidence for him, and if we choose to ignore it then we have to accept the consequences of that. with no offence intended towards 'stiffmaster' its intersting to see an athiest now going purly on faith. that is, that despite the evidence i have provided (which is only a scrath on the surface of evidence for creation) there are still people who choose to ignore an alternative to evolution. i honestly believe that most people just dont want to believe in a God, purly because it means they would be responsible to Him for the things that they do. We would prefer to be able to do as we please and to justify that we make up stuff to convice ourselves we're right, but ultimatly what we believe doesnt change the facts. thats my opinion, that there is a God, and there is more than enough evidence for it. some religions are "bullshit", but there is one that makes sense to me scientifically and that doesnt require anything of me but to believe.
no longer wondering , 30.03.2005, 9:19am link
Alot of people have made remarks about the Asian tsunami being proof that there is no God, or if there is one that He doesnt care for us, because he could have easily have stopped it from happening. These people speak about the countless children who were killed before they could come to know God, and the poor people who never learnt about God because they were surrounded by other religions and couldn’t afford to go buy plane tickets to fly over to America and learn about Christianity. They claim all of them will go to hell undoubtedly and suffer for all eternity because they were born in a poor country, or killed too young, and this is proof of an either non-existent or unmerciful God. They have also used some of these arguments for the tragic September 11th terrorist attack. There are, however, valid arguments against such claims, if we are to look at this from a Christian point of view. 1. As for September 11th and the tsunami, we fail to recognise the fact that ever since the idea of evolution was introduced (and even before) people have been rejecting the idea of a God. In America today, prayer and the scientific theory of Creation is banned from public schools. For so long we have been telling God that we don’t want anything to do with him, we want him out, we don’t believe. God is patient, but although he is more merciful than any human is capable of, his tolerance has its limits. He will never forsake us, but He will turn away from us eventually if we deny Him. Then when the tragedies happen we ask, “Where is God? How could he let this happen?” all the while school children are being brought up to believe that evolution is the sole truth as to the explanation of our existence, and not allowed to decide for themselves if they would rather believe the alternate scientific theory of Creation. 2. God has given us free will, and he has set the laws of this universe in motion, and usually he will not intervene. Usually the only exception is when we pray for something to happen, and then if it also be Gods will, he will act accordingly. If a terrorist decides to crash a plane into the World Trade Centre, then God must not interfere. Of course it pains him to see people die in such a cowardly attack, but if we are to be given the ability to love Him freely, we must also have the option to deny him, otherwise it would not be free will. If the terrorists choose not to believe in Christ and decide to follow the ideas of their religion, then they must be allowed to do what they have chosen to do. God cannot just say, “well they don’t believe in me so ill just take away their free will and avert this disaster.” As for the tsunami, it is a tragedy but it is also a natural occurrence. As well as this, we do not know for sure how we may have (with our free will) affected the natural circumstances responsible for the tsunamis creation. The ecosystem was a perfect creation made by God, and we as a species have undoubtedly been tampering with it. Who knows if the nuclear bomb testing in the pacific cracked the tectonic plates and thus over time an earthquake and tsunami resulted? If we with our free will chose to explode bombs under the ocean and disrupt these plates, then God must allow the consequences of those actions to be carried out. Or perhaps the green-house effect has something to do with the tsunamis creation? Who knows for sure? 3. As for young children burning in hell, the Bible states that God will judge us according to what we know about him. If there is a child who has never heard anything about Jesus Christ, or has never been able to understand what it means to him, God will understand this and I have no doubt they will go straight to heaven. This is also true for adults, although it is hard to believe that they would not have had any contact with Christianity even in their country. God is not an evil spirit that enjoys watching people who hate him die, he loves each and ever one of us. It is so sad to see those people die, but this is what we are making of the world with our hatred towards God. Life is no walk in the park for Christians either, but if I were to die in an earthquake or a flood, I would not blame God. Not for an instant. I felt I needed to say this, because it makes me really angry when people blame God for bad things happening, but don’t thank him for the good things, or even consider the possibility that we may be the ones at fault. As always I mean no offence to anyone.
nlw , 09.04.2005, 7:36am link
Once again I would like to make it clear that I am not trying to impose upon anyone’s beliefs because I truly believe we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I urge you to be open-minded

Oh, yeah cut the bullshit... I admit that evolution may be flawed. What isn't Flawed? Have you read the bible lately? That has so many cracks in it you could dump a few million popes in it.... Anyway... POINT is...

Religious Fucks will never ever believe in evolution. That's fine with me. Yes it has some flaws. Evolution is very complex No ONE is going to figure it out in one book or one sitting it may take many....many life times to even get it right. Believing in a religious version of evolution? No thanks... But I'll have a good laugh anyway.
MR T [Email], 10.04.2005, 7:59am link
so evolution has flaws, its complex and it hasnt been figured out by any one person. many people have looked deeply into the theory and still cant understand how it all works, but they choose to accept it. then they skim over a book like the Bible and claim to find flaws or contradictions and yet choose not to believe it. and even so i think that if they actually looked deeper into some of the meanings behind the apparent contradictions, or read it with an open mind they would find answers to the many supposed flaws. ive heard many people say stuff like, 'in the old testiment it says an eye for an eye, and yet in the new testiment it says not to seek revenge and to love thy neighbour' to someone who has simply just read these two parts of the Bible it seems to be a contradiction, but in fact it was Moses who made the eye for an eye law, not God, and secondly alot of the laws in the old testiment were irrelivent after the coming of Jesus, hence the two testiments. Not to mention the fact that the Bible is thousands of years old, and that as it was copied from one form to another words may not have been translated accuratly or even at all. even so i fail to see any flaws in the Bible and if you would like to point out a major one to me i would be happy to try and explain it. Nevertheless, you should also look for the truths. Ive heard of many cases of evolutionists admiting to making false evidence to support their theory, in the form of ape-men skeletons. if their theory was true beyond any doubt (even though it cannot be comprehended fully) why would they need to make up evidence? i fail to see any truths in evolution at all and i have looked upon it open minded. can you say the same for your observations of the Bible? speaking of which, think of the many truths in the Bible. The fact that it has survived for thousands of years and despite many attempts hasnt been erradicated. Take for example the prophecy that the country of Isreal would come back in the last days, and if i am not mistaken not so long ago the U.N. decided to give Israel back their former land, even though they had been erradicated. How often does that happen? Sounds too me like more than a coincidence. anyway you have to make up your own minds, and im sure most of you have already. i sorri about my spelling its probably really bad. oh, and by the way i dont agree with the pope at all, i dont think Mary is the way into heaven, and anyone can have a personal relationship with Jesus, you dont need to go through anyone.
nlw , 12.04.2005, 11:16am link
Hello Zealots

To the athiests: I can understand you oppossition to religeon it is a load of crap. Dangerous crap at that. What i dont get is your antagnism (excuse my spelling) towards any sort of spiritual belief or possibility of a higher intelligence.If you where to read Super Nature by lyal Watson you might realise that the human mind is capable of far more than the Scientific establishment is willing to admit. The Scientific Establishment is guilty of disregarding scientific findings as vehemently as a christian denying evolution if said findings dont fit into there chosen world view. Dont forget that th e USSR funded extensive research into paranormal phenomena with some convincing results if with no actual findings on the mechanisms of what was found.
While none of this comes close to prove the existence of god it does suggest the possibillity of the power of mind as a force able to affect matter. Why then is it a huge step to believe that mind can create matter or influence it enough to become life.
Having stated that : the truth about christianity is this : wether or not Christ existed is no more relevent than the existence or non existence of odin or krishna.
The myth of christ as any other myth was meant as an extended parable by the early "christians" to teach a method of spiritual evolution. Like a lot of human wisdom these mtyhs where taking literally by most people and eventually taken advantage of by unscrupelous leaders as a means to control the ignorant masses.
Physically we may be highly evolved monkeys but spiritually we are god experincing its dreams made manifest.
What evolutionary purpose does our rather impractical abillity to appreciate the beauty of nature serve? I explain away the apreciation of physical beauty as a over developed sexual instinct.
The apreciation of art and music an over developed need to comunicate.
But what of the feeling of awe and wander inspired by a sunset.
Hell lad , 16.04.2005, 1:06pm link
football man , 04.05.2005, 11:29pm link
"the creator would have to exist outside of the universe, which is logically impossible."

Slight problem here: They now think there is a multiverse, that our universe is one blob in a potentially infinite number of other universes, and that universes can occur when two other universes collide.

Anyway bottom line we don't know shit about shit yet and your argument is far too presumptuous.
JJ , 10.05.2005, 2:48am link
how can we presume to know everything and say that there is only one universe, or even that if there are other universes they have to be like ours or they have to have been created through similar occurences as we presume that ours did (evolution, the big bang). i think u hit the nail on the head JJ, we dont know shit about shit. scientists in the middle-ages or whenever used to think the earth was flat. why? because that was all they could depict about the world around them with their limited resources for scientific study. today we can tell that the earth is a sphere, so scientific analysis of things can change over time with the development of better tools or ways of looking at things. so what makes us so sure that we have it all figured out now, and what authority do we have to say there cannot be another dimension or even a God. we are no different than the people who claimed the earth was flat, just a different topic at hand. we have not come across anything to disprove the possibility of God, in fact all that we have discovered through the use of science i would say is increasing evidence for a God. Sciences seeks out the truth, and through science we have discovered laws about this universe that tell us amoung other things that we cannot have gotten here spontaniously and we cannot evolve into more complex lifeforms over time due to the fact that everything in this universe decays over time. You can put your faith in these superhero scientists that profess to know everything about the universe and can tell you catagorically that even though there is evidence against it, evolution and the big bang are without doubt the true reasons for our present existence, but I cant do it. They are only human, and until someone can show me clearly evidence against a God why should i stop believing in one? If anything science has proved the existence of a God. Take a look at the world differently next time you look up at the stars or admire a garden. Do you think it all just happened to come into being magically, all so perfectly and working together in unison, the beauty and awe of it all. Or is it more logical to think a loving God created it all once for mankind, and we ruined it as we have been doing ever since. Please, just think about it. Dont dismiss it, just think about it. Make up your own mind, dont just accept what the science books tell you about evolution being the truth. Your so much more than a walking accidental piece of decaying organic matter.
no longer wondering , 12.05.2005, 10:36am link
i have nothing against science, i love watching discovery channel and national geographic and finding out all these amazing things about our planet. the fact that we even have science is i think proof of intelligent design and a creator. if the world was thrown together by a massive cosmic explosion then how come there is so much detail and perfection in the way things work. The Earth is tilited at exactly 23 and a half degrees, its the right distance from the sun, the moons gravitational pull influences the tides... there is so much working exactly as it should be that it rules out the possibility of pure coincidence. Everything has to be there at the same time working in unison for it all to work. If you put a frog in a blender (not that i reccomend you do this) and break it up why does it die? Its an interesting question. A frog that has been mixed up in a blender is the perfect beginning for life from an evolutionists point of view. all the dna, molecules, everything that makes up the frog is all together in one spot... this is how evolutionists want us to believe we got here. Because it is not simply enough to just have all the right parts in one place at the right time (which in itself if purley impossible because something cannot come from nothing), for the animal to be able to function it needs to have everything on a molecular level in the right place, effectivly the right parts in the right place at the right time. The chances of this happening i would say is 0. For every blink of your eye, for every time it takes in light, everytime you think, walk, act... there are chemical reactions and cells all over your body working together to make the action happen. That probably wasnt the most scientific report i could have given, but i hope it makes sense enough so you can understand what im trying to say.
no longer wondering , 14.05.2005, 2:51pm link
hey while you religous people are hugging ur bibles, why dont u go stone some misbehaven children to death like it says in ur good book!
aacfb , 16.05.2005, 6:09am link - Comments from archived blog posts