Atheism revisited

[Joanna vander Poele]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1658803' date='Jan 22 2009, 16.14']A little list of officially atheist states:

* Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

* Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

* People's Republic of China

* People's Republic of Albania

Now some countries with Established Christian Churches:

* United Kingdom

* Norway

* Costa Rica

* Greece

Where would you rather live?[/quote]
Yes, because religion is the only thing that determines where you want to live :rolleyes: Besides, would you have enjoyed living in 16th century Established Christian Church England, you filthy, filthy heretic?

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1658803' date='Jan 23 2009, 01.14']A little list of officially [b]communist[/b] states[/quote]A bit easy to imply that a government that separates itself from your religion is a communist tyrant.

some examples of non-religious states:
France
Japan
Germany
Ireland
USA (see: first amendment)
Canuckistan
Chile

[Malatesta]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1659086' date='Jan 23 2009, 13.57']some examples of non-religious states:
France
Japan
Germany
Ireland
USA (see: first amendment)
Canuckistan
Chile[/quote]

Here we should make a distinction between the state and the population.

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1658803' date='Jan 22 2009, 18.14']Blah Blah 6th Grade level argument blah blah[/quote]

So much wasted pixels.

We interrupted the on-going discussion of wave functions and certainty of knowledge for the verbal equivalent of an ASCII rendition of a penis? Meh.

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='Malatesta' post='1659103' date='Jan 23 2009, 07.31']Here we should make a distinction between the state and the population.[/quote]Well, the original argument, as I understood it, was that atheists were tyrants, forcing their views on everyone, and creating thus totalitarian societies whereas religious people were the ones to build the most appealing societies on earth, or something like that.



[b]TerraPrime[/b], it should be noted that it reached its goal, after all, even you stooped to 6th grade retorts after that, instead of contributing to the discussion you say you find more interesting :P

[Shryke]

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1658726' date='Jan 22 2009, 18.19']As long as the Christian god stays very comfortable with being redefined all the time that evidence may be a long time coming. What I find funny is that the catholic version of god I was taught as a child, heaven, hell, that sort of thing, is wrong now. They've changed their minds. [b] So in effect, that god was not real.[/b][/quote]

No, it's just redefining how we understand of God.

It's like God is speaking to us in a different language, but one similar to our own. We're trying to figure out WTF he's saying, and sometimes someone comes along and says "No, you idiots, he's obviously saying Y, not X".

[Hereward]

[quote name='Eloisa' post='1658869' date='Jan 23 2009, 01.08'](NB many of the witches burned in English witch trials were Catholics, at a time when Catholicism was banned...[/quote]

Except, of course, witches weren't burned in England. Witches were tried, certainly, but far fewer than in western Europe and conviction rates were very low. I also know of no evidence that suggests that anyone was tried for witchcraft because they were believed to be of Catholics.

[quote]My own theory is that many of the English are diffident about religion because we've been killing each other over different interpretations of Christianity for five hundred years and it's getting old.[/quote]

I doubt it. The English didn't kill one another over religion for 500 years. In fact, religious wars were minimal compared to the rest of Europe, and short-lived too. Prejudice, yes, warfare, no.

My own view is the the English are relatively irreligious because of a blend of the following reasons: early industrialisation and urbanisation, that they haven't experienced a threat from a power of a different religion for such a very long time, and the lack of significant minorities from other religions.

[Tsoert]

[quote name='Hereward' post='1659240' date='Jan 23 2009, 10.29']My own view is the the English are relatively irreligious because of a blend of the following reasons: early industrialisation and urbanisation, that they haven't experienced a threat from a power of a different religion for such a very long time, and the lack of significant minorities from other religions.[/quote]

If the last 2 are true would that mean that in the wake of "Islamic" terrorism that more people should be joining the church and actually going?

I was going to post some form of argument about the whole atheist/is there a god thing but then I thought "I'm more of an apatheist than atheist and just don't really care" so decided not too

[Hereward]

No, I don't think so. I'm not sure such a process can be readily reversed. Any reaction would probably be political rather than religious now. :unsure:

[JGP]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1658776' date='Jan 22 2009, 16.56']I am not being cute or mysterious about this. I understand that wavefunctions exist where the electron has a probability amplitude of going through slit A, slit B, both slits or neither. I just wanted (and not to go to far afield of it) to respond to Galactus who mentioned that once we know the initial conditions of an experiment, we should be determine what is happening. Well, now we have probabilities (or probability amplitudes) of what occurs. I dont think it is an open-and-shut case of deterministic behavior.[/quote]

Ah, got it. I'm too used to you working several moves ahead. :P

It's a good counter-argument. I'd have to scroll back to see what our space faring, planet eater is answering to with that old adage, which as you've shown is true only to a certain point. The difference from the quantum to the macroscopic is more than little big though. There are definitely deterministic behaviours in the universe [i]we're[/i] accustomed to. So...

[spreads hands]

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1659086' date='Jan 23 2009, 00.57']A bit easy to imply that a government that separates itself from your religion is a communist tyrant.

some examples of non-religious states:
France
Japan
Germany
Ireland
USA (see: first amendment)
Canuckistan
Chile[/quote]

I am referring not to secular states, of which I have no grudge against, but those that actually promote atheism. Without fail every such nation has been a dictatorship.

Religion however has no [i]direct[/i] bearing on freedom; there have been free secular states and repressive theocracies. But as far as I know in the present world every such theocracy is Muslim, while all officially Christian countries are democracies.

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1659657' date='Jan 23 2009, 18.10']I am referring not to secular states, of which I have no grudge against, but those that actually promote atheism. Without fail every such nation has been a dictatorship.[/quote]Whoa, what a revelation, governments that oppress their citizen are dictatorships, while those who leave freedom of belief are not.

What were you driving at, exactly? That christians don't oppress people? That atheists should be barred from government? Say it clearly.

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1659715' date='Jan 23 2009, 12.55']Whoa, what a revelation, governments that oppress their citizen are dictatorships, while those who leave freedom of belief are not.

What were you driving at, exactly? That christians don't oppress people? That atheists should be barred from government? Say it clearly.[/quote]

I was pointing out that while religious and secular countries may or may not be free, atheist ones never are. This suggests such countries might have a fundamental part lacking. Sadly Christians do oppress people, but now no longer at the national level, which other religions still do. In the U.S. atheists are [i]de facto[/i] barred from government, as for better or for worse most voters are religious and will support religious candidates.

Or if you want a non-PC answer:

Down with the Godless Commies! Away with the Pagans! For England and St. George!

[Malatesta]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1659657' date='Jan 24 2009, 01.10']Religion however has no [i]direct[/i] bearing on freedom; there have been free secular states and repressive theocracies. But as far as I know in the present world every such theocracy is Muslim, while all officially Christian countries are democracies.[/quote]

Religion has no direct bearing on family structure? Sexual and power relations? hierarchies in self created organisations? private schooling? communities? etc

I give this probably one thousand "lols" - is that an appropriate amount?

[quote]there have been free secular states and repressive theocracies. But as far as I know in the present world every such theocracy is Muslim, while all officially Christian countries are democracies.[/quote]

1. How do secular states differ from "promote atheism" states?
2. The Vatican, England and others can all be said to have pretty specific theocratic principles.
3. You realise there are elections in the Muslim world right?

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1659802' date='Jan 24 2009, 02.45']I was pointing out that while religious and secular countries may or may not be free, atheist ones never are. This suggests such countries might have a fundamental part lacking.[/quote]

What about an "atheist state" where the population are extremely religious in spite of the fact? Or secular nations with extremely high levels of fanaticism?

[Ser King]

[quote]That's patently false. Evolutionary theory, to the extent that it is part of the accepted scientific explanation of the natural world, is what Williams and other Intelligent Design people seek to discredit. I know not the verbal game you play to then call their effort as something other than an attempt to falsify science.[/quote]

But stuff isn’t proved, it’s disproved. That’s the standards science has set.

[quote]I am not ruling out deductive reasoning, at all. Show me which argument I made so far gave you that impression. My argument is that those who criticize evolution theory as a way to support intelligent design often fail to understand the science of evolution, thus rendering their criticism invalid.[/quote]

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God, so its not that big of problem (not for me anyhow). Plus I think you're mixing apples and oranges. William is talking about naturalistic experiments, not intelligently designed experiments designed to produce homochirality. One has nothing to do with the other.

[quote]I read the Williams article you linked. It's full of misuse and abuse of scientific findings. The conclusions he drew are not born out by the evidence. For example, Williams argued that "redundancy is powerful evidence for design" because "if naturalistic experiments are unlikely to produce an organism with sufficient functionality to survive and reproduce, then they are even [i]less[/i] likely to produce one with [i]more[/i] functionality than is needed."

There're so many things wrong with these few sentences. I'm rather impressed actually at how much inaccuracies one can pack into a small paragraph.

First, he either did not understand the study he cited or he deliberately misused the data. His two citations that preceded that line was 18 and 19 in his second paper, which is Becker et al. in Nature 440:303-307 and the wikipedia article on knock-out mouse, respectively. Let us tackle the second bit first.

Williams said that since only 15% of the genes are "developmentally lethal" when conducted in single knock-out experiments, that means that "85% of the mouse genes can be knocked out (one or a few at a time) and still produce a viable adult." First, his citation is wrong. Here's the wiki page as of June, 2006, the date he cited for his access, compared to the current page: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knockout_mouse&diff=57979681&oldid=56267775"]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...;oldid=56267775[/url] . You will notice that on this page, there was no information pertaining to the 15% figure. Second, his conclusion is wrong, [color="#FF0000"]regardless of the percentage cited. If X% of genes lead to dead embryos, i.e. developmentally lethal, that means (100-x)% can be nullified and still yield a "viable adult." It's more than possible to survive embryonic development and die soon after birth. For example, mice with defects in DNA repair will survive, but develop cancer much more rapidly than normal mice. This does not mean that DNA repair genes are "redundant," as his following conclusion claimed.[/color]


With regards to the first article, the line that Williams cited saying that the study reflects "extensive metabolic redundancies and access to surprisingly diverse host nutrients" for [i]Salmonella enterica[/i] was lifted from the Abstract of the article. It was nowhere to be found in the body of the article. This is the equivalent of someone quoting the Cliff's Note. Setting that bit of academic laziness aside, the article itself is a dense report on the proteomics of [i]Salmonella[/i] in the context of drug discovery. It contains many excellent pieces of data (as most articles in [i]Nature[/i] do), but none of it spoke to why redundancy is evidence for design. In fact, the report doesn't even speak so conclusively on reundancy, if one pays attention to the actual data.

So, what we have here is one fabricated citation, and one technically correct citation but out of context, to support one of the author's argument on why evolution theory is wrong. Setting the non-existing scholarship aside (seriously, I will fail the student on their effort to find citations if that's what they hand in on their term paper- this is Highschool level work) and focus on the argument, for we know that there is redundancy in genes and gene functions in nature, even if Williams was incapable of finding the right sources to support that claim. How does redundancy argue in favor of intelligent design? Williams' answer is that if natural selection and evolution cannot create life, then certainly, it cannot create life with multiple redundant parts. Therefore, the presence of redundant parts is evidence of design. The obvious circular nature of the argument should not be hard to spot.

[color="#FF0000"]First, of course, evolutionary theory says nothing of the creation of life, only what happens to life after it existed. Second, we have naturalistic mechanisms for redundancy on the molecular level. Transposable elements, viruses and phages, strand slippage during replication, translocation mutations, illegitimate cross-overs, auto-polyploidy, are all ways in which we get gene duplications, i.e., redundancies. Again, here, intelligent design explanation is not needed. Nature is capable of providing methods of generating redundancies on her own, and we can observe these methods, quantify them, and study them in our laboratories. [/color]

[color="#4169E1"]This is why I asked those questions, questions which you side-stepped with a rather non-sequitorial response. This also affirms my impression that Intelligent Design supporters who criticize scientific understanding of our world do not themselves know the science they criticize. What they do, like Behe, is to collect scientific information, then miss-attribute or misinterpret them to fit their existing worldview. Frequently, the so-called scholarship in that field are shoddy and sub-par, riddled with inaccurate interpretations of what the science said. The fundamental principle of intelligent design is flawed, so the only way that its supporters can find evidence to support their argument is to either be ignorant of science or to use scientific findings in an abusive and twisted manner. Intelligent Design is not, and will never be, a scholarly field of study because the premise is intellectually bankrupt. Attempts to write scholarly articles on Intelligent Design, like what Williams had tried, result in something akin to putting a chimpanzee in a tutu and calling it a ballerina - it is unflattering to the chimp, though it is hilarious to the onlookers.[/color][/quote]

The other central issue being discussed (or avoided) is that metainfo exists, that is, information about information- a code of information that exists to manage information already present- this code of metainformaiton. This metainformaiton is an end product- in order for information in pieces to be useful in the sense of self preservation and maintenance, it has to rely on the metainformation to do so, and either this metainfo was spontaneously created before the ‘species’ (single cells arrived on the scene) OR, it was intelligently caused to coincide with the information within species, and this metainfo had to be present first to be able to deal with all the supposedly arising new species i the future. The premise of the article is that in order for something to move beyond it’s own kind, it NEEDS to take the information it does NOT possess from a higher source somewhere- and this is antithetical to macroevolution because mutations can NOT cause NEW non species specific info to arise, it can ONLY work on the info already present within a narrow species specific parameter.

We KNOW that DNA had to have information about information already present in order to even survive, and that this info about info contained instructions to repair and maintain the DNA, and it has been suggested that such info about info is simply impossible for nature to create because of the reasons suggested in the articles.

something interesting I came across in part two:
([color="#2E8B57"]bold [/color]emphasis mine)

Objective knowledge and historical inference

Science gets results by observation and experiment upon repeatable phenomena. Its most valued products are general laws that are observed repeatedly which we can confidently call ‘objective knowledge’. These general laws may be incomplete or even false, but they are objective in that they are open to testing by others. New information may cause them to be modified or discarded. Meanwhile, this objective knowledge is usually useful in curing disease, improving technology and food production, etc.

[color="#2E8B57"]But the subject of origins is quite different. It deals with unique sequences of unobservable and unrepeatable past events. No one can develop general laws about unique, unobservable and unrepeatable past events. Our general laws can tell us what might have happened in the past but they cannot tell us what did happen. Nor does anyone have a time machine to go back and observe what actually happened.[/color]

The best that science can do is extrapolate backwards in time from present day objective knowledge, using the principle of uniformity. This principle says that the laws of nature remain the same through all of time and space.

Note that this principle is not objective knowledge—we cannot visit all of time and space to verify it, so it is just a convenient but necessary philosophical assumption. [color="#2E8B57"]Most people do not realize that this principle underlies all of evolutionary theory, nor do they realize that it is potentially an anti-God assumption because it assumes that God has never intervened in history.[/color]

Historical inference is thus quite different to objective knowledge. We cannot test it by observation or experiment, so it is only as good as the assumptions it is built upon. If the assumptions are wrong, the ‘knowledge’ will be faulty.

In the following discussion, the objective knowledge of life is available to all sides. [color="#2E8B57"]Surprisingly, there is universal agreement on the fact that at present there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.[/color] The controversy lies entirely in the historical inferences about what might have happened in the past. [color="#2E8B57"]The only way we can evaluate these historical inferences is to examine the assumptions used to make those historical inferences and test the logical connections for internal consistency.[/color]

This is what I was discussing- about who or what the intelligence is behind IC or evolution.

[color="#FF0000"]I’m assuming you mean in a materialistic manner? If so, got evidence showing that? They aren’t (Here I’m assuming you are referring to some mythical ‘mountains of evidence’ supporting Macroevolution that doesn’t exist) you MUST makes huge leaps of faith if you think a fin evolved into a weight bearing leg, or that a jaw bone worked it’s way into the inner ear canal to form intricate hearing because what do we have for evidence of ‘incremental change’ for the ear? a deceitful chart that places a rat sized animal with a jaw bone in a certain location, that sits next to a HIPPO sized animal (although you would never know they were so dissimilarity proportioned by looking at the deceitful chart because the authors drew them both of similar proportions in an attempt to deceive), and it;s claimed that the ‘jaw bone incrementally moved it’s way forward in successive ‘generations’ of species’ and formed the ear hearing system.

First, you are assuming that RNA produces itself. It doesn’t. Second, the RNA that self replicates (up to a point) was designed in the lab, and was controlled in carefully designed experiments. In naturalistic experiments it does no such thing. Indeed, it sticks to just everything, including itself. Thus, your experiment is much more supportive of intelligent design.

The complexity of biochemistry alone would render chance as an improbable mechanism for life to spontaneously arise. To think of the information that is coded into DNA, the complex chemical reactions in ATP and at the hormonal level to keep the individual alive, much less successfully reproducing, is mind boggling.
[/color]

[color="#4169E1"]
I explained this in earlier posts- every species or living thing does not necessarily become completely non viable, BUT they do move towards non viability them ore it gets corrupted. Species DO have DESIGNED systems to help deal with becoming non viable, however the trend is to move toward it. The amount of mutations that would have been needed to produce even ‘positive mutations’ far far exceeds the mutation we see today, AND it would have completely overwhelmed species that were ‘in the process of’ macroevolution Were it even possible biologically for mutations to add new non species specific information in the first place- Again, We see that entropy enters the picture preventing the whole process UNLESS you can show some naturalistic means for nature to create soemthign that overrides entropy?[/color]

[Ser King]

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1657562' date='Jan 21 2009, 22.14']As any child can attest the realization that those monsters are not real is quite liberating. Also, 'version' of reality?[/quote]

Children also tend to close their eyes in disillusion, hoping for the monster to disappear.

Every individual as a version of reality, some similar to mine, others as vast as the oceans themselves.


[quote]This addresses nothing in my point, so I guess you concede it again. It's great how unlike formal debates its easy for people to check up and see that you aren't actually addressing any of the refutations that are made.

Evidence that is based on an erroneous understanding of abiogenesis isn't what I'd call evidence. His observations and evidence all falls on its head when it becomes clear that the things being spoken about (devolution?) are made up. To even use the word evolve when discussing abiogenesis is stupid.[/quote]

Your full of baggage, concede what exactly? You don't even know what the article is saying, hell you haven't even read it, and the below post is proof. At least Prime took the time and read the damn thing.


[quote]I haven't even spoken about who the 'intelligence' is either, so I'd kindly ask you don't put those words into my mouth. I've pointed out why many of the statements are blatantly incorrect, misunderstandings and made up fantasy.

So, apparently, even though many have pointed out that all the 'evidence' is bullshit your asking people to focus on the mysterious central issue. So, lets all put aside the lack of proof and made up crap and break it right down to the central issue shall we, for the sake of what you want to discuss you get a free pass, you don't have to put your money where your mouth is. In a nutshell describe the articles important central them for me if you please. The central issue.[/quote]

Did you even bother reading it? (There are two parts by-the-way, I posted both).

There are three lines of reasoning pointing to the conclusion that autopoiesis provides a compelling case for the intelligent design of life.


"• If life began in some stepwise manner from a non-autopoietic beginning, then autopoiesis will be the end product of some long and blind process of accidents and natural selection. Such a result would mean that autopoiesis is not essential to life, so some organisms should exist that never attained it, and some organisms should have lost it by natural selection because they do not need it. However, autopoiesis is universal in all forms of life, so it must be essential. The argument from the Second Law of Thermodynamics as applied to the vacuum cleaner analogy also points to the same conclusion. Both arguments demonstrate that autopoiesis is required at the beginning for life to even exist and perpetuate itself, and could not have turned up at the end of some long naturalistic process. This conclusion is consistent with the experimental finding that origin-of-life projects which begin without autopoiesis as a pre-requisite have proved universally futile in achieving even the first step towards life.

• Each level of the autopoietic hierarchy is dependent upon the one below it, but is causally separated from it by a Polanyi impossibility. Autopoiesis therefore cannot be reduced to any sequence of naturalistic causes.

• There is an unbridgeable abyss below the autopoietic hierarchy, between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environment and the perfect purity, the single-molecule precision, the structural specificity, and the inversely causal integration, regulation, repair, maintenance and differential reproduction of life."

"Life’s irreducible structure and the concept of
autopoiesis are not in any way contradicted by the common
arguments against intelligent design. Yockey’s claim that
the origin of life is an undecidable question does not stand up
to scrutiny—it is an empty play on words designed to hide the
uncomfortable conclusion of design.
The idea that life arose naturalistically from non-living
chemicals is not objective knowledge, nor is it based upon
any inference, deduction or extrapolation from objective
knowledge. Quite the reverse—it is an ideological statement
formulated in opposition to universally contradictory objective
knowledge. Only intelligent design meets the criterion of an
acceptable explanation according to the Law of Cause and
Naturalistic explanations of biological origins all depend
upon faulty reasoning such as: (i) exclusion by definition and
ridicule, (ii) assuming what must be proved, (iii) misinterpreting
the scientific evidence, (iv) assigning unrealistic properties to
the environment, and (v) misusing the concept of chance. In
Polanyi’s terms, now is a very reasonable time to declare the
impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life and accept that it
was intelligently designed."



[quote]What reasons are there for these reactions not being able to happen over a time scale of billions of years? The ones you gave earlier were made up tosh so I'm going to need some more. Nature can take it one step at a time, over billions of years, a time scale that boggles the human mind, literally. I'd say that if it took nature that long to get it right then nature is an incredibly shitty chemist, not brilliant at all. But over that time scale it doesn't matter, you can be incredibly shitty, eventually you get it right. Its like a combination lock with 100 numbers to choose from, you can press the buttons randomly and eventually you get into the lock, you only need to do it once though. Over a billion years your going to open a shitload of locks.[/quote]

From part 1 of the article:

Many carbon-based molecules have a property called ‘chirality’— they can exist in two forms that are mirror images of each other (like our left and right hands) called ‘enantiomers’. Living organisms generally use only one of these enantiomers (e.g. left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars). In contrast, naturalistic experiments that produce amino acids and sugars always produce an approximately 50:50 mixture (called a ‘racemic’ mixture) of the left- and right-handed forms. The horrors of the thalidomide drug disaster resulted from this problem of chirality. The homochiral form of one kind had therapeutic benefits for pregnant women, but the other form caused shocking fetal abnormalities.

From part 2:

The ground level of the autopoietic hierarchy is perfectly pure components, such as only left-handed amino acids (in contrast to the dirty chemistry of the natural environment). De Duve has no naturalistic explanation for this transition because the mass-action laws of environmental chemistry drive it towards mixtures rather than purity.

The Miller experiment creates a racemic soup of left- and right-handed enantiomers that would be toxic to life.

[color="#FF0000"]Plus Scientists performing carefully controlled and designed experiments in the lab only support the ID/creation side. They provide NO evidence that those same chemical reactions could have happened in nature on their own.[/color]

[quote]Your basically tromping out the tired old fossil record argument, the tired old anti evolution argument, that if we can't be there we can't prove it. Say one thing for creationists, say they are recyclers.[/quote]

Forensics involves things that have happened, based on observation of available evidence. [b]This is speculating on things that cannot happen, based on an absence of evidence.
[/b]

[Dornish]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1659802' date='Jan 23 2009, 13.45']I was pointing out that while religious and secular countries may or may not be free, atheist ones never are. This suggests such countries might have a fundamental part lacking. Sadly Christians do oppress people, but now no longer at the national level, which other religions still do. In the U.S. atheists are [i]de facto[/i] barred from government, as for better or for worse most voters are religious and will support religious candidates.

Or if you want a non-PC answer:

Down with the Godless Commies! Away with the Pagans! For England and St. George![/quote]Which might be a valid argument if all the so called "atheist" states you mentioned didn't exhibit blind faith in a political ideal (Communism for the most part). The atheism of those states is incidental.

[Zoë Sumra]

[quote name='Ser Wolf King' post='1660587' date='Jan 24 2009, 05.34'][color="#4169E1"]
The amount of mutations that would have been needed to produce even ‘positive mutations’ far far exceeds the mutation we see today, AND it would have completely overwhelmed species that were ‘in the process of’ macroevolution Were it even possible biologically for mutations to add new non species specific information in the first place-[/color][/quote]
150 years is, in geological and biological time, next to nothing. Yet in that next-to-nothing-time the Galapagos finches studied by Darwin have mutated, as shown in a study by a couple of scientists from, I think, Yale. Laboratory fruit flies show mutations within a few generations (i.e. a few weeks). There's been plenty of time.

[Galactus]

[quote]Except, of course, witches weren't burned in England. Witches were tried, certainly, but far fewer than in western Europe and conviction rates were very low. I also know of no evidence that suggests that anyone was tried for witchcraft because they were believed to be of Catholics.[/quote]

Witches were very rarely burned at all. (mostly they were executed and the burned)

Ironically, along with England the country with the lowest amount of witch-trials and certainly lowest amunt of convictions was.... Spain. Mostly thanks to the Inquisition.

[quote]But stuff isn’t proved, it’s disproved. That’s the standards science has set.[/quote]

Not neccessarily,

[Joanna vander Poele]

[quote name='Bruce Galactus' post='1660762' date='Jan 24 2009, 05.33']Ironically, along with England the country with the lowest amount of witch-trials and certainly lowest amunt of convictions was.... Spain. [b]Mostly thanks to the Inquisition.[/b][/quote]
Ahh, didn't expect [i]that.[/i]