Thank you mephisto.
Electrum, apology accepted and I offer my apology back for the shots I fired across your bow. You make a good point with kids. They'll fight one minute, and be best buddies the next. that's something the world needs more of.
Basically my thoughts are that since the universe lacks the matter to end itself, as Dr. hawkings suggests in his theories and papers, that it may not have a beginning and it's expansion (which is inconsistant as we are expanding faster now than at the big bang whch was faster than 2 billion years ago) is very inconsistant with the theory of the big bang.
Actually my argument against a creator has nothing to do with evolution. It's basically that I believe, under any kind of scientific examination possible or invented, that a creator god cannot exist without creating a terminal unresolving contradiction in the fabric of reality itself. Now I would not be opposed to the theory of a god that is not an all-in-one-everything god. IE, a god that is limited in power and scope.
Energy itself, I do not view and some kind of deity or god, it simply something that does not cease to completely exist. It changes, adapts, and continues in one form or another. But it also decays over time. many so-called PEM's sold on the internet prove that even recycled energy can be exhausted. Energy itself has always existed, in the universe in many, many forms. Gravity, weak attractors, quarks, atoms, electricty, wind, dirt, ice, the sun and so on all contain energy to varying amounts. Where did it come from in the beginning, I'll point out I don't feel the universe had a beginning to begin with. So where it came from is a great mystery none of us will ever live to see answered. That's the best part of science, the quest to find out, however.
On Creationism vs. Evolution. Creationism is something that assumes all the facts up front are true at face value without examination or proof. It's unwilling to budge from that. Infact, Evolution and Creationism cannot be compared at all. It's like comparing star wars and star trek. Evolution is a theory designed to explain why things change over time slowly. It has flaws since the original theory has had little revision work done to it since its inception. More energy was wasted in fighting it. Evolution actually never rules out a divine hand in it, nor does it rule out that outside intervention can happen. IE, genetic enginneering. Creationism does have tis flaws, like light before a source of light and plants without a sun to power photosynthsis (spelling?). And even if we plug in the theory that one day was a 3/4s of a billion years or something, I don't think any plant cold live that long without the sun. You are right many don't rule out a divine creator. What they do, however, require is hard proof.
It's like a court case. Unless you have real proof, that cannot be debunked under cross examination, expect it to get knocked down in a few minutes.
Arguing about the copying of velco from nature is in itself a type of fallacy. Sorry to call it again, but I do. The flip side of this arguement, on the same fallacy, is that many praise god's genius in creating humans in his image, but note how much of a poor imitations of the original we all truely are. "If the imitation is a product of genius, how much more so is the original?" <-Now I just flipped your closing into accent fallacy?
Carl Sagan aside, since first-contact scenarios are not of debate at the moment.
http://www.research.ucla.edu/tech/ucla04-099.htm and beside that, I'll bring up mention of the nearly 3000 genetic, built in diseases all humans have in them. I'll also point out that heating and cooling DNA triggers combination and speration. Which is in effect, driven by a form of energy. Soemthing our planet 3.5 billion years ago had a lot of. Next on the list is you msut remember that DNA wasn't discovered until after darwin's death and long after he wrote his celebrated theory. As such, a new study into evolution is warranted.
You are equating a computer program to genetic structure. That's the velcro arguement again.
There is proof of evolution existing. In humans, vestigial organs provide us with links back to our past. We don't need them any more because we evolved beyond the need for them. Appendx is alone, while no longer serving any clear purpose, may be the remains of of the larger cellulose-digesting cecum found in our herbivorous ancestors. The list of vestigial organs in humans have gone down from the original list. Some no longer being found in humans, others turned out to be needed organs. The coccyx (tail bone) is another, Wisdom teeth, plica semilunaris (It's a fold of skin in the corner of your eye that is the remains of a nictitating membrane - 3rd eye lid). Goosebumps is a vestigial reflex that actually served one purpose, now serves another. There are vestigial organs based on gender as well. Why to male mammals need nipples? Well, that's because we don't. It's just because up until a certain point in pregnancy, we're all gender neutral/female. That means while we have no gender early on, our genetics default to female unless a certain hormone from the mother changes that.
Several kinds cetacians have leg bones, despite being unable to live on land as of right now. So why would they have such bones? The wings of ostriches and emus provide more evidence in the bird families.
Now because vestigial organs are supporting evidence for the theory of evolution, the concept has been vigorously attacked, with creationist claiming that anything "vestigial" it must be utterly useless. This is a misrepresentation of the term and function: An organ can be vestigial if it serves no function or a different function in a modern animal than it did in an ancestor. Goosebumps, for example, in human ancestors may have been used to raise up body hair to make one appear larger before a perceived predator (like a dog or a cat will raise the hair on thier back). Now it is more of a tell-tale sign of the body being too cold or a sudden cold breeze. The gas baldder of many fish may indeed be a vestigial lung, left over from the occasionally-air-gasping ancestor is common to both ray-finned fish and land vertebrates.
Evolution occurs slowly, over time. Not suddenly or with the flick of a finger. It was a slow process, taking its time. Evolutionist have observed beneficial changes. For example, they observed a specific kind of moth in england that changed fro it's natural white to a dark grey. Why? most likely because of the pollution and industrial soot that covered thier habitat made it easier for preadators to eat them. I think that's a pretty useful change that took several generations of moth to generate.
Is evolution a religion? by all means no. You're attacking it on baseless grounds. The Theory of Evolution is like any theory and some day, it may be debunked and replaced by a more accurate theory of evolution in the future. Evolution itself, however, made a lot of sense and still does. As the theory of evolution by natural selection has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism (often mistaken by creationist for evolution even today). I think what is happening here is that you mistook Lamarckism for evolution. Evolution doesn't lash out and torture people who tink otherwise, nor does its followers break into homes of the non-blievers and murder them all. It doesn't trigger microscope burnings in people's lawns or go door to door harrassing you on your day off. By accusing evolution of relgious dogma and rhetoric you are now trying the a is true/b is false fallacy.
T. H. Janabi, is not a credible source. This guy attacks evolution the same way he attacks non islamic creationist. This guy's book was listed with "Garlic - Nature's Original Remedy" by Stephen Fulder/John Blackwood and "Incredible Islamic Scientists - Vol. 1 & 2" by K. Ajram and "The Miracle Of Islamic Science " by Dr K Ajram (now he's a doctor!).
Sir Fred Hoyle, whom died 4 years back, also -In his later years with Chandra Wickramasinghe- promoted the theory that life
evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that
evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.
Evan Shute. My intial research into him revealed two men. One is in heart medicine and the vitamin fad. The other man apparently ahd one book and little-to-no biographical information about his scientific career and research processes. However, absed on his claims, he appeals to the theory that because something is complex, it cannot happen by chance or random occurance.
Robert Jastrow's comments, however, I found have been taken out of context with his original statements on intelligent design.
George Greenstein, I'll need a complete text, not abrdiged quotes to render a decision on his comments. however, He does tend to argue devil's advocate which I respect.
Le Figaro-Magazine, Link please? Afterall, anyone can say "The Union-Leader recently covered a scientific conference in bostom where 500 of the top minds in science all discussed and eventually ruled that the world is flat". Then list quotes.
Now my hands hurt... lol
Mt. Kailasa or Mt. Kailash is a 6000+ footer in Tibet. It's a sacred point for at least four religions - two of them being major religions. Those those it's the Navel of the World (so I guess earth has an outie?) or it's also the sacred home of the God Lord Shiva. It's also has the distinction of never being climbed - but the chinese gov't keeps handing out permits to climb it that no one follows through with. For myself, I simply like the way it looks and some pictures of it are breathtaking. The Chinese gov't, however, is hell-bent on building roads and tourist traps all around it and over it which is destroying a huge amount of cultural heritage which is mind boggling given that the chinese gov't only hands out 200 permits a year to visit the site.
But otherwise, it's a really spectacular place.