Changes

:::*Unless you can show me one definition of the word ''evolution'' upon which ''all'' scientists, or even all ''proponents'' of the concept "evolution," agree, your sentence above is operationally meaningless.

:::*Unless you can show me one definition of the word ''evolution'' upon which ''all'' scientists, or even all ''proponents'' of the concept "evolution," agree, your sentence above is operationally meaningless.

::::Biological evolution is the change in the genepool from one generation to the other due to a stochastic process that involves mutation and selection. All scientists agree on that. And in computer science an mathematics you assume additionally that you have a self-replicated process, and that the genetic influence is linked to the frequency with which it appears in the next generation.  And that definition has been fairly stable since the early 70s as well. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Biological evolution is the change in the genepool from one generation to the other due to a stochastic process that involves mutation and selection. All scientists agree on that. And in computer science an mathematics you assume additionally that you have a self-replicated process, and that the genetic influence is linked to the frequency with which it appears in the next generation.  And that definition has been fairly stable since the early 70s as well. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---

---

::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.  

::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.  

:::* I've heard that canard before. Better minds than either of us have already disproved it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::* I've heard that canard before. Better minds than either of us have already disproved it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Saying that you've heard it before doesn't prove that it not true. The second law really applies to closed systems. Or do you want to argue that life is a closed system? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Saying that you've heard it before doesn't prove that it not true. The second law really applies to closed systems. Or do you want to argue that life is a closed system? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.

::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.

:::* Of course sin does not appear in any of the (ever-changing) definitions of evolution. Because they who ''write'' (and rewrite) the definitions reject the very concept of sin. Or rather, they define sin differently: sin, to them, is anything that stands in their way.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)  

:::* Of course sin does not appear in any of the (ever-changing) definitions of evolution. Because they who ''write'' (and rewrite) the definitions reject the very concept of sin. Or rather, they define sin differently: sin, to them, is anything that stands in their way.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)  

::::No, there were also people, Christians, who do accept notion of sin, who were also writing scientific definitions. Problem is that even they didn't have a use "sin" in their scientific definitions. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::No, there were also people, Christians, who do accept notion of sin, who were also writing scientific definitions. Problem is that even they didn't have a use "sin" in their scientific definitions. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---

---

:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::It has not, because as I said above, no one has shown that these "algorithms" work in the wild.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::It has not, because as I said above, no one has shown that these "algorithms" work in the wild.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Since its all mathematics it applies to all self-replicating processes. If you want to show that it doesn't work in the wild, you have to show that there are active processes preventing it from happening. I haven't seen any argument by you that goes into this direction. You always argument that evolution is a random walk, and that is false. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Since its all mathematics it applies to all self-replicating processes. If you want to show that it doesn't work in the wild, you have to show that there are active processes preventing it from happening. I haven't seen any argument by you that goes into this direction. You always argument that evolution is a random walk, and that is false. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---

---

::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.

::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.

::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---

---