Welcome back pollution :(

[superfrozo]

>>>ADDENDUM: Iron Skillet beat me to the punch and his/her post is far more eloquent and succinct than mine - read it instead to save time!<<<

GB, this topic makes me about as uncomfortable as discussing why the Earth is flat or why slavery is not only acceptable but downright fun. By which I mean it only makes me as uncomfortable as thinking that there are people involved in aviation with so little critical thinking skills as to make Sarah Palin look coherent and informed.

1. Evolution has, is and will be continued to be observed. You won't accept that because you are narrow minded, and have reached your conclusion in advance, without regard for the facts. You seem to take this as an ad hominem attack, so by all means disregard what I say. Instead, why don't you walk into ANY (reputable) University on the planet and state your so-called "dis-proofs" of evolutionary theory? Start with the biology department, then go to Physics, Mathematics, Geology/Geography/Oceanography, Engineering... Etc... Hell, you can go the English Literature department - I bet even THEY will laugh at you and your so-called "dis-proofs"! By the way, "Operational science" is another Discovery Institute-esque nonsensical term coined by creationists merely to designate those sciences which creationists have little, if any, complaints about. It does not exist in any meaningful way in the real academic world. It's a bit like saying "alternative medicine". There simply is no such animal. There is simply medicine that works, or medicine that DOESN'T work. (hint: Evolution is an integral part of modern science and, <gasp!> it works). The "Operational science" soundbite appears solely in arguments presented by creationists about whether "ideas" such as evolution and the Big Bang Theory are really "scientific." Again, shock horror, it turns out they are. Don't believe me? Try using this term in any (non-Oral Roberts) science University faculty and watch the look of disgust/amusement on the faces of the faculty members.

2. Thanks for the approval, so I can state unequivocally your creationist arguments are rubbish. To elaborate, what you don't understand is new information is regularly generated in evolution, whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication arises. I know that creationists love to use "Information Theory" in their dismissal of evolution, it's just that they just don't bother to learn the theory's key distinctions (eg. Shannon vs Kolmogorov Information), it's implications or the fact that it essentially destroys what little shred of "knowledge" (word used in it's loosest definition here) you have regarding the discipline. Dramatic examples of entirely new, unique traits arising through mutation have been observed in recent years, such as the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, which developed new enzymes to efficiently digest a material that never existed before the modern era. In fact, when an organism is considered together with the environment it evolved in, there is no need to account for the creation of information. The information in the genome forms a record of how it was possible to survive in a particular environment. It is not created, but rather gathered from the environment through research—by "trial and error", as mutating organisms either reproduce or fail. Additionally, you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension of one of the fundamental concepts of information theory: not all "bits" are of equal value. As for your "it is becoming apparent there is designed variability built into genomes" comment, excuse me while I throw up and then use the peer reviewed "Intelligent Design" scientific papers to clean up the mess. Oh, wait, there aren't any, better use the more practical and far more informative wad of toilet paper instead. <creationists please insert farcical and long since discredited bacterial flagellum ID argument here>

3.Sorry, but you seem to know even less about thermodynamics than evolution, if that's even possible. Pray tell, what are the other laws of Thermodynamics? Why do you guys always pick on the poor old 2nd law?! Urrgh, anyway, back to teaching 1st year Physics: This BS creationist claim is based on a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems, which do not exchange matter or energy with their surroundings. Organisms, in contrast, are open systems, as they constantly exchange energy and matter with their environment: for example animals eat food and excrete waste, and radiate and absorb heat. Similarly, the Earth absorbs energy from the Sun and emits energy back into space. The Sun-Earth-space system does not violate the second law, because the enormous increase in entropy due to the Sun and Earth radiating into space dwarfs the local decrease in entropy caused by the existence and evolution of self-organizing life. To further illustrate the inanity of your supposed "refutation", by your misunderstanding of the 2nd law, ALL of the following natural occurrences are violations: Water freezing into ice, fertilised eggs turning into babies, plants using sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen (Interestingly, you don't seem to invoke divine intervention to explain that process... Is it because the Bible doesn't mention photosynthesis?!?) Again, "science fail". Go back to school. No, not Sunday school - real school where you learn stuff.

4. Clearly you have NO idea what "falsifiable" means with respect to the Scientific Method. That's just plain embarrassing and I won't dignify that question with an answer. Please read some books. Any books. Except the Bible.

5. I have never said there is no purpose to life. That is a creationist logical fallacy with respect to athiesm. Life IS purpose and it's wondrous gift should be treasured for the simple reason it is the ONLY life we get (apologies to Hindus). Ironically, it's religious people that are most "me-centric" as their worldview tends to be "god loves me and listens to me and wants me to have a $15M flat in Central while kids in the Sudan starve to death". Even without fairies in my life, I think there is plenty of purpose - especially when it comes to those kids in Sudan. So, someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods has no "logical" reason to be moral hey? How about this: Let's say I subscribe to your fvcked-up model of reasoning for one day. I'll just walk about town looting, raping, pillaging etc... Because there is no god and damn the accountability. But WAIT, it appears that OTHERS seem to be upset with this behaviour, and suddenly I'm not really fitting into society very well. Why is this?? People don't seem to want to help me, or give me things like food or shelter, or even talk to me!?! But I'm a social animal, I need companionship, food, water, sometimes even physical assistance. Damn, there seem to be consequences to my actions. Most interesting of all, because I have a highly evolved sense of altruism and empathy (note: I am a normal person, NOT an airline manager) I also seem to get a guilty feeling, and I'm not even Catholic BUDDUM-TISH! Hmmmm, how strange. Could it be because I have an innate sense of what is right and wrong? Crazy stuff. Here's a real experiment you can try with a child 8yrs or older: tell them a runaway train is approaching a switch point where they're standing, on one track is a group of 4 people picnicking, on the other, is one person reading a book. They HAVE to choose which way to send the train, so either 4 people or 1 person will die as a result of their actions. Ask them who they choose and why. Now given them this scenario: 4 terminally ill people are in a doctor's waiting room, all just hours from certain death, each needs a different replacement organ (heart, lungs, liver, kidneys). In walks a perfectly healthy person - do you have this person killed to save the others? I will leave you to ponder the significance of this scenario and the inference of the consistent and known results. (want to know what happens when you ask "religious kids" this hypothetical and you assign a "opposing" religious affiliation to some of the characters?!?)

Finally, GB your whole "creationist scientist" malarkey is crap. You know as well as I that there is NO "controversy" about evolution, despite what your Kentucky Creation Museum pamphlets might say. There are plenty of religious scientists who have deeply held faiths that still accept and embrace the reality of evolution, rather that be afraid of it like a frightened native seeing a plane for the first time. (Refer to Ken Miller, conservative Christian, author, biology expert and star witness against the Intelligent Design flunkies in the Dover/Kitzmiller trial.)

You fail to see the irony in your reasoning - you dismiss science as unable to provide us any "ultimate meaning" whilst attempting to use it to buttress your (flawed) arguments against evolution. You turn science "off" & "on" when it suits, but always there is the metaphorical finger waggle of "don't trespass on religious territory, we don't want no stinkin' science here". However, I can imagine how quickly you would fall over yourself if science provided mitochondrial DNA evidence of Jesus' "virgin birth", and trumpet this scientific evidence to elevate the perceived importance of your religious doctrine.

Unlike religion, science has no "authorities", only experts. You're neither, so whilst you're entitled to your worldview, just don't expect others to keep quiet when you use it to "increase the entropy of ignorance" when you deny reality.

I'm done too - feel free to post again or pm me if you want the last word, promise I won't reply.

PS. Still polluted outside.