Changes

::::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)

:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 13:27, 30 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.  

::::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)

:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 13:27, 30 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)

::::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)

:::::Excuse me, but you have not even shown anything about a self-replicating process. You have not defined that term, and this is the first that I have heard about any of this. And after learning about the fraud that [[Ernst Haeckel]] committed with his fudged embryo drawings, I am not going to accept ''anything'' at face value from an evolutionist without hard and fast corroboration. You're going to have to lay out your entire case, and perhaps the best place to do that is in an Essay.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::Excuse me, but you have not even shown anything about a self-replicating process. You have not defined that term, and this is the first that I have heard about any of this. And after learning about the fraud that [[Ernst Haeckel]] committed with his fudged embryo drawings, I am not going to accept ''anything'' at face value from an evolutionist without hard and fast corroboration. You're going to have to lay out your entire case, and perhaps the best place to do that is in an Essay.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 13:27, 30 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)

::::* 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)

:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

---

---