Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin's arguments against God
CMI ^ | Russell Grigg

Posted on 03/11/2009 8:26:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last
To: CottShop

I’m still confused about what a “kind” is but hopefully my last post will point some things out.

“It DEFIES natural laws, biological, mathematical, and chemical laws”

Ok, which ones? I don’t see it. Are you referring to the second law of thermodynamics? That states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. The Earth is supplied with energy in the form of solar radiation. As a result, Earth is not an isolated system of heat transfer.


151 posted on 03/12/2009 2:53:39 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Guys, The Flinstones was not a documentary.
152 posted on 03/12/2009 2:57:05 PM PDT by JHBowden (Keep the Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

I’m trying not to deny the Bible because I want to believe in it. If I have to go through this ceaseless battle with young earth/old earth creationism/evolution, then I may very well remain an agnostic until I die. This is a supremely important debate.

Anyway, must we conclude that Adam was the first man? I don’t see that explicitly states in Genesis. It says he created mankind (man and woman), the man was formed from the dust, and placed in Eden. The current theory is that all living persons originated from a mitochondrial Eve through coalescence (last remaining lineage, the children of the others did not reproduce). The only problem is that this would have to be 200,000 years ago and she was not the only woman in Africa.

By the way, knowledge of the human genome is important in medicine. If you value your health and that of others, you should be happy that someone cared enough to decode it. The leader of the human genome project was a professed evangelical christian by the name of Dr. Francis S. Collins. He argued that evolution and the Bible were compatible and that made me believe in Christianity for a while. Now I don’t know what to believe.


153 posted on 03/12/2009 3:15:45 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

I’m not a scientist, as I’ve said, and not in medicine. I don’t see how the belief in evolution improves medical research and in fact, I think it’s a distraction.

Anyway. God’s whole reason for creating man, is for fellowship. We broke that fellowship when we willfully sinned. We chose death and separation from God. But God commended his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, he sent His son to die for us.

Death and suffering is a result of sin. That’s why Christianity is incompatible with evolution. Evolution teaches that death and suffering went on for eons before humans sinned, that God’s creation was imperfect and flawed. It dismisses Biblical salvation and the need for God to come down and dwell among us and take our sin upon Himself.

The fact that we’re sinners should be clear. The fact that sin is the cause of all this pain should be clear. The good news is God is willing to reconcile us to Himself. We just have to accept that reconciliation. I pray you’ll do that.


154 posted on 03/12/2009 3:55:17 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
“The Bible doesn’t even explicitly say that Adam and Eve were the first and the only. It just says:”

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

1st Corinthians 15:45


For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

1st Timothy 2:13

Lets be precise now...
155 posted on 03/12/2009 4:06:01 PM PDT by Fichori (If YOU Evolved, YOUR Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are VOID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

It looks like God says “you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” (Genesis 3:3)

Where does it say that all of creation now experiences physical death after they touched it? It says that creation was “good” in the beginning but I don’t see anything regarding death prior to this.

Others have explained to me that there could not be any animal death because that would not be “good”. Where is this idea coming from? If this is true, why weren’t the Jews ordered to be vegetarians?


156 posted on 03/12/2009 4:15:14 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

**** forgot about that.

Looks like I have to remain an unbeliever.


157 posted on 03/12/2009 4:36:59 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

Unless...Adam wasn’t a Cro Magnon.


158 posted on 03/12/2009 4:39:54 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

I can think of one. Romans 8. The whole chapter is great evidence of the power sin has over the creation, as well as the futility of works for salvation but I’ll just give you what you’re specifically looking for.

Rom 8:19-22 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

And incase you might wonder if “creation” is refering to humans. Verse 23......

And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

And here’s another. All of Isaiah 11
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=11&v=1&t=KJV

Honestly I think this argument is grasping at straws.


159 posted on 03/12/2009 5:32:44 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”

That much is true about the period we are living in but that doesn’t seem to be anything specific about death before the fall or is it? Also, Isaiah is referring to the world that is to come, right?


160 posted on 03/12/2009 6:00:50 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

“Death before the fall”

Yes. The fall would have to be what’s being referred to as what made the creation subject unto vanity. That was a really poorly worded sentence. We have to be talking about the fall here because verse 23 says We ourselves groan. Wouldn’t you agree our groaning and nature’s groaning are from the same event by their proximity in this passage?


161 posted on 03/12/2009 6:15:49 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

[[Ok, which ones? I don’t see it. Are you referring to the second law of thermodynamics? That states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. The Earth is supplied with energy in the form of solar radiation. As a result, Earth is not an isolated system of heat transfer.]]

Tis true- tis true- however, you are aware that an open system is even worse for the hypothesis of macroevolution right?

Open vs. Closed Systems

Next, Isaak arrives at the heart of his argument, invoking what has really become a classic—and very misleading—evolutionist tactic: He tells us that the creationists’ error is that “they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.”

The basis of his claim is the fact that while the 2nd law is inviolate in an isolated system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system—often erroneously called “closed” system), an apparent “violation” of the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added). Isaak tells us “life [is] irrelevant to the 2nd law,” and so is evidently convinced that every living system is an exception to the 2nd law.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a “closed” (isolated) system, so the 2nd law dictates that within the universe, entropy is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—i.e., fact, not theory.

However, here on earth, the popular evolutionary line of reasoning goes, we have an “exception,” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things,” Isaak says. And indeed, solar energy is added to the open sub-system of the earth continuously. But simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). If this were true, no scientist would object to the elimination of the ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary process, as it were) in the world as we know it.

No, we know that raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both “closed” (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined “law” must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” (or in Isaak’s words, be “irrelevant to”) the 2nd law of thermodynamics? http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#thermo


162 posted on 03/12/2009 8:18:40 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

[[No one is making the claim that single mutations dramatically change an organism into something wildly different.]]

That is NOT what the article stated- nowehre did it mention single mutaitons- as well, the fruitfly experiments involved many many millions of mutaitons, just as species woudl be subject to over their supposed billions of years of ‘evolution’

[[It can even go in the other direction. Laboratory studies on chicks reveal that single mutations can cause atavistic growth of teeth which were inhibited by another gene.]]

Swell- expression of info that is already present, and hten turnign that info on- Again you are NOT creating ANYTHING new via mutation- it’s a ‘johnny come lately’ attempt to, after the fact, look at the completed code, point out somethign that ‘changed’ (But hwich falls squarely, once again fully within species specific parameters, and claim it’s a ‘new and novel’ feature- which it certainly is not

As I mentioend before- when you CAREFULLY examine all the so called evidences for macroevolution, they break down- and hte article I pointed you to shows that NO new novel non species specific info ever arises, and certainly NOT in the massive- MASSIVE amounts and accumulations that MUST have occured IF macroevolution were a reality- ALL we have arte moot examples of species change, species change which falls squarely, once again, within species specific parameters-


163 posted on 03/12/2009 8:25:09 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

lol- my beleiefs aren’t being htreatened- just answering the silyl arguments against htem- tyou know- the silly arguments that pretend microeovlution is macroevolution, pretend mutaitons are endowed with magical powers, pretend that natural, biological, chemical, and mathematical laws don’t exist when it comes to macroeovlution?

Trust me, the science supports my beleifs just fine- it’s yours that is in trouble. Speaking hte TRUTH about scientists who both are unwilling to ever cede evidences, and who ostracise and malign and belittle those that don’t tow the darwinian line isn’t derogatory- it’s callign htem to the carpet to account for hteir deception- most intentionally- some ignorantly


164 posted on 03/12/2009 8:30:18 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

[[Mutations change the amino acid. You may have ‘silent site’ mutations, moderately disabling, or lethal changes in the nucleotide sequence. They can have a variable effect on fitness, from highly advantageous to highly disadvantageous. Most mutations are simply neutral until another mutation causes a significant change in the amino acid sequence.]]

You don’t see the problem do you? ANY changes MUST be anticipated- in other words, the metainfo MUST first already be present- mind explaining how that metainfo arose from chemicals? Simple changes don’t just affect one aspect of a system, it affects many, and IF ALL the systems aren’t able to cope- then the changes won’t be assimilated into the whole- in order to cope however, the whoel system must have had the metainfo already present to regulate, direct, and utilize htese changes

[[The end result of “fixing” advantageous genes in a population can sometime be that an existing structure is modified to gain a new function.]]

And hten he goes on to show an ABNOMALITY such as an extra digit- for which the info was ALREADY present- Muller gives NO evidence for NEW non species specific info, morphology, or major organs or systems not specific to that species arising from mutaitons- He just A PRIORI ASSUMES they must have- ‘sometime in the past’, and is doing nothign more htan pointing to MICROEVOLUTION and claiming it is MACROEVOLUTION, or at least claiming such microevolutionary changes ‘could result in’ macroevolutionary changes ‘sometime i nthe past’ (For, once again, which we have NO evidence)

[[“Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one.”]]

Yup- but mind explainign to everyone how simple conservation can lead to NEW NON SPECIES SPECIFIC systems arising without hte info to do so?

[[There is much more to say. Shall I go on? Any questions?
]]

Hopefully it’s not goign to me just more examples of microevolution that is trying to be passed off as ‘evidence for macroevolution’?


165 posted on 03/12/2009 8:40:22 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
“Looks like I have to remain an unbeliever.” [excerpt]
Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?
166 posted on 03/12/2009 8:55:25 PM PDT by Fichori (If YOU Evolved, YOUR Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are VOID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

“Swell- expression of info that is already present, and hten turnign that info on- Again you are NOT creating ANYTHING new via mutation- it’s a ‘johnny come lately’ attempt to, after the fact, look at the completed code, point out somethign that ‘changed’ (But hwich falls squarely, once again fully within species specific parameters, and claim it’s a ‘new and novel’ feature- which it certainly is not”

Huh? Of course the genes for teeth are already present, that’s the whole point of the experiment! Are you saying that it must be false because we don’t have the technology to re-engineer an entire genome? Even if we could, what would that prove besides that we’re really cruel to lab animals?


167 posted on 03/12/2009 9:05:21 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

We may very well be talking past each other because I still don’t understand where you are coming from. What exactly do you mean by “metainfo”? Are you referring to the genome?

“Muller gives NO evidence for NEW non species specific info”

That is one scientist who co-authored a few papers about very specific genetic data and about very specific species relationships. The rest of the data is produced by the rest of the scientific community.

I still don’t know what you mean by “species specific info”. Are you referring to DNA nucleotides?

I don’t think I should argue further until you clarify this.


168 posted on 03/12/2009 9:35:28 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

the metainfo is the higher info that controls all lower info, or subinfo in species

[[The rest of the data is produced by the rest of the scientific community.]]

There is no ‘rest of the data’ that I’m aware of, only assumptions without evidence, and a priori beliefs.

Species specific- each species has it’;s own set of metainfo which controls all species specific lower info, as well as prevents outside manipulations beyond their own species specific parameters- that is why species can ONLY be manipulated within certain species specific ‘guidelines’ or parameters- that is why fruitflies remain fruitflies regardless of how many mutaitons your throw at them (whcih sceicne certainly has done in hopes of chasing the ever elusive unicorn of Macroevolution), that is why ducks remain ducks- kinds remain kinds- following hte evidence, both through repetable experiments in the present, and the evidence of the fossils, shows just what htey show- discontinuity, and species specific parameters preventing continuity. Species have several built in, coded for, protection levels that prevent mangling of hteir species specific paramters as well, and it’s all controlled by a higher metainfo that science simply can not explain via chemical to chemist macroevolution


169 posted on 03/12/2009 11:04:49 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

[[Are you saying that it must be false because we don’t have the technology to re-engineer an entire genome?]]

Nopwe- didn’t say it was false- I said the scientists are johnny come lately’s who are trying to manipulate code that is already present, and buffalo the public into htinking that the expression of previously turned-off gene functions somehow translates into Macroevolution, and can somehow, despite any evidence, account for the trillions of dissimilarities between species kinds, when infact, the ONLY way to introduce the absolutely necessary NON species specific info into a species to facilitate major morphological changes is via lateral gene transferences, which we know only occure between some low life bacteria of hte same KIND.

I’m saying, that just like in Miller’s supposed ‘explanation’ for the ‘evolution of higher blood clotting’ He and other scientists take code that is ALREADY PRESENT, and fantasize abotu how it ‘could have arisen’ and hten take the gigantic leap to extrapolation land and claim it did happen- the problem is though that it would take an icnredible INTELLIGENT DESIN in order to achieve their fantasy claims- when Miller’s ‘explanation’ for blood clotting evolution’ is examined, in detail, you will quickly come to realize just how incredibly complex it really is, and how much intelligent manipulation, protection, nurturing, and development really went into Miller’s ‘all natural’ ‘evolution of blood clotting’- He is taking code that already exists, decons tructing it, and htne claiming that because lower clotting systems exist, higher more complex ones must have simply naturally evolved- this is goign WAY beyond the actual facts, and infact shows just how much intelligent design really is needed. The panda’s ‘extra digit’ functions are nothign new- the info was already htere, and htere is NOTHING to state that info worked on via mistakes can not be of some use, but htis is a MUCH MUCH different proposition than is the issue of introducing trillions of NON species specific info which absolutely MUST have happeend in order to arrive at hte millions of different species kinds i nthe world bot present and extinct.

IF we’re havign trouble even describing insignificant poiojnts, then why am I to believe trillions of these changes and additions of new non species specific info occcured in the past, all without some form of higher metainfo controlling it? This metainfo didn’t just accumulate via chemical to chemist ‘evolution’ via mistakes in coding-


170 posted on 03/12/2009 11:16:48 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

[[“Looks like I have to remain an unbeliever.”]]

No you don’t- ALL you have to do is look more objectively at hte actual evidence of science, it will lead you, as it did for the fella in one of my previous posts, to the conclusion that the evidence shows NOT Macroevbolution, as evos liek to claim, but rather special creation and discontinuity- it all just depends on which you wish to put your faith in- the actual evidences? Or someone’s projections of the evidences WAY beyond what hte actual evidences really show such as macroeovlutionists do.

IF You’ve accepted Christ as Savior, asked Him to forgive you of your sin- honestly and sincirly, then you are saved, and I’m not suggresting we are saved via science, or hsould put our trust in science, BUT I AM saying science just further strengthens God’s creation model when you look at it honestly and objectively and htrow out all the projections and assumptions that simply are NOT an actual representation of where the evidences lead.

Anyway- late- night- Macroevolution isn’t nearly as ‘solid’ as you’re told it is- or you’ve studied about- look closely, you’ll see how the hypothesis is propped up with assumptions and claims that lack evidence- everywhere you look in macroevolutionary claims it’s glues together with claims that simply do not fit the evidences. Also try to understand fully the difference between macro and microevolution- there is a big big difference, and micro can not biologically lead to macro- the ONLY thing that can bring about macroevolution is lateral gene transference, and even this has many serious problems associated with it when it’s tried to be extrapolated to continuity between species kinds (Again, built in species specific parameters prevent such manipulation, and again, species psecific metainfo simply doesn’t allow it). The problems with Macroevolution are NOT insignificant- they are serious death blows to the hypothesis, and presenting microevolution as though it was macroevolution, or ‘could lead to’ macro, won’t help the hypothesis one bit- they are two seperate biolgical processes- one a reality, the other a non reality that simply can’t happen biolgically, mathematically, naturally, or chemically.


171 posted on 03/12/2009 11:27:41 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I’ve investigated the creation science theories enough to know there’s holes in those theories you could drive a bulldozer through, and plenty of deceptive arguments and questionable evidence used to try and justify them.


172 posted on 03/13/2009 4:01:41 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Soothesayer
I seriously doubt that tactic- Are those 'holes' larger than the IMPOSSIBILITIES associated with macroevolution? ID science follows the evidence- that's it- there aren't any 'holes' when you follow the evidence- the evidence is what it is- IF the fossil records show discontinuity, then that is what it shows- period- to go beyond the actual evidence and claim it shows continuity when you don't have the slightest evidence to show it does is NOT science- it's pure projections based on ASSUMPTIONS and an A PRIORI advocacy, and you're going to tell me that Creation science and ID have 'holes' in it? While IGNORING the glaring canyons in Macroevolution?

Let me just give a brief but lengthy synopsis of what I've found when Evos have presented their 'best evidences' for macroevolution over the years, and you tell me which has the bigger 'holes'- remember, these are the 'best' arguments for Macroevolution- I'll present it with the claim first in red, and my response after I investigated the claims for myself- NOTE the intentional deceits that went into the claims for macroevolution as well, and then get back to me and tell me again how ID is being deceitful when they present the EVIDENCE that refutes the evo's claims: (I'm sure you will just ignore this post altogether or at worse- simply deny the deceits made by macro's- but here it goes)

1:We can witness evolution in the lab. Eukoroytes and prokaryotes are an example of macroevolution: No, no they are not- but amazingly, it is STILL taught in schools that they show 'evolution in action'- EVEN AFTER getting caught and exposed evos STILL present them as 'evolution in action. prokaryotes, it turns out upon carefuly examination, engage NOTHING more than a symbiotic relationship with a host with euko's- pure symbiotic relationship- nothing more- but this was, and still is presented as 'evidence for macroevolution' today

2: Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example of macroevolution: Nope- sorry, wrong again. It is well known that bacteria are able to laterally transfer genetic info between their OWN KIND, and that combining genetic info from one and another, a bacteria is able to handle many stress situations most species can not- but they REMAIN their own kind- nothing NEW is gained- Bacteria are precoded to be able to utilize this unique ability seen only in bacteria.

3: 'Feathered Dinos' show a link between reptiles and birds: Bzzzt- Those aren't feathers- they are degraded scales- Scales when they degrade show a slight resemblance to feathers. As well, they lacked the actual characteristics of TRUE feathers, and could not possibly have sustained flight EVEN IF the reptiles magically evolved the many other absolutely necessary bird features such as avian lungs, avian breathing tubes, avian sternums, avian bones, avian flight muscles, avian wings etc. For which there is zero evidence to support- just wild assumptions about 'missing evidence'. Despite all this, there is nothing to preclude the idea that reptiles couldn't infact have feathers for such things as displaying rituals, warmth etc- this would still be a LONG way off from establishing a link between birds and reptiles.

4: Mutations that cause sickle cell anemia show a 'rise of new info, and show macroevolution: Bzzzzt- wrong again. LOSS of info is the exact opposite for what Macroevolution needs. As well, a deleterious mutation, regardless of any slight positive effects it might accidentally provide, are NOT the mechanism through which macroevolution works. Sickle Cell causes more deaths than it saves, and is a serious detriment. There is also nothing to say mutations can not result in slight gains or advantages but it MUST be noted that these fall squarely within DESIGNED species specific parameters, and are NOT a net gain of new non species specific info NEEDED by macroevolution. (You'll note that this statement will arise quite often, as it is KEY to understanding just what exactly separates macroevolution from micro evolution)

5: The fossil record for the evolution of land dwelling hearing is the most complete and settled scientific evidence we have and clearly shows evolution in action: Bzzzzzt! Wrong again. Have any of you even bothered to examine this ridiculous claim? Have any of you even bothered to look at the chart and investigate the matter? Seriously! This chart is such a deceitful chart, that one would think the scientists that invented it would be ashamed to be exposed for the charlatans they are WHEN they got caught! But nope- it's still presented as 'the best and most complete' example of evolution in the fossil records.

Where to begin... The chart shows the supposed movement of jaw bones in fishes to the inner ear canal, but when you examine the chart you will note that #1, there is NO proof of a relationship between the 'earliest' fishes to land animals, #2, there are gaps of millions of years between the supposedly closest related species- who's to say those jaw bones didn't move back the other way in species not yet found in those millions of years gaps? #3, the 'link' between the water dwelling cynodont, and land dweller show skulls the SAME SIZE- this is a blatant intentional MISREPRESENTATION! The water dweller that is supposedly related to the land dweller is the size of a RAT while the land dweller is the size of a HIPPO! These two are related? And supposedly show a nice neat flow of jaw bones to the ear? How about them 1000 or 10,000 or so OTHER TRASITIONALS in between the HUGELY different two species that MUST have existed while this supposed evolution was going on? Where are they? It is ridiculous to think that the scientists thought we'd be so stupid as to not notice this glaring deceit! (I've spoken about this chart in depth elsewhere here on FR- but this is the crux of the issue)

6: Apes are related to humans because 'our genomes are very similar'. Bzzzzt- this 'similarity is dropping more and ore the more we look into this supposed link. As well, the differences are in the billions, something for which Macroevolutionists have no answer as the relatively 'short' period of time that evos claim man and ape diverged, could NOT account for these differences genetically. (This category also involves many claims of 'missing links' which when examined turn out NOT to be as 'settled' as some claim them to be, and also turn out to be either fully ape, or fully human, with one category, Ergaster, not even being a legit 'category' but none-the-less it's given as an example in the nice neat little charts which again are intentionally deceitful) (I'll not go into this one further as this has been discussed ad neauseum many times here on FR- Let it be known that there is WIDE disagreement even among secular scientists about the classifications, and let it be known here that there is a WIDE variety of human skulls even among modern day beings, but this is NEVER discussed because evos desperately wish those 'missing links' to be 'transitionals' and won't cede that they could be deformed skulls, and let it be known here that MANY of the 'examples' of 'missing links' have themselves, many missing parts for which inventive imaginations simply draw in the huge blanks)

7: Natural entropy isn't a problem for Macroevolution because we live in a open system, and in open systems, there are examples of processes which 'violate' the entropy rule (Creationists don't really understand the second law): HUH? What a crock! First of all, those processes that 'violate' the entropy rule are STATIC processes such as snowflakes forming simple geometric patterns that follow geometric rules! EVERY other system, especially living systems, is STILL subject to the second law, and in an open system, things are even WORSE for them! Crystal growth is a lame example of this 'violation' when it comes to living systems:

1) Evolution calls for the development of life itself and subsequent life forms from a purely natural process. Life does not function without the strictly controlled conversion of raw solar energy into useable energy. What are the specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes that led from zero such conversion capability in raw matter to the multiple and varied mechanisms and processes that are inherent in every living organism as we know them?

2) Evolution calls for the development of ever more volume and ever greater variety and complexity of data in the genetic code of living organisms as they allegedly first emerged, then progressed from, simplest forms to the present broad spectrum of variety. What specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes have led from zero genetic data in raw matter to the vast array of voluminous genetic data inherent in living organisms as we know them? [Link: TRUEORIGINS]

Be sure to read that whole exchange, because it goes to prove just how deceitful evos are when it comes to waving away SERIOUS problems associated with Macroevolution. Creationists understand the second law just fine thank you, and it is quite obvious after reading that exchange that it is the evos that don't understand it despite their stubborn insistence that they do.

8: Tiktaalik shows transition from water to land: Bzzzzt- Tiktaalik does no such thing- it is a lobe-finned fish- nothing more! The bones, wrist, and structure of bones could NOT support the fish's weight on land, or even underwater on the bottom. These lobes are used not for scooting along the bottom as once thought, (and claimed, and taught in schools) but for unique maneuvering while suspended in the water. While the fish did have a separated head, unlike fish, this doesn't show anything but that it was a unusual species of fish- extrapolating it to mean it was a 'transitional' is a statement of devout a priori assumption that fish became land dwellers. We know today that many fish have unusual fins, but they are still fish and could NOT survive out of water- Stating otherwise is a religious statement, and NOT a scientific statement

9: I'll stop here for now, as there is much much more I've personally investigated and found to be severely wanting. your claim that there is 'plenty of deceptive arguments' in the creationist ID camp is a false one based on a few websites which do NOT represent the actual sciences of Creationism or ID no more so than the DECEPTIVE sites like Darwin Central, and Talkorigins and Panda's Thumb website represent true science. IF you wish to discuss actual evidences, instead of pointing out some inaccuracies on sites like answers in genesis (All the while ignoring the reams of factual science they do present) then let's discuss the actual evidence and see if they, the claims of macroevolutionsits, hold up- I've found that no! They do NOT hold up when examined closely, objectively, and carefully. When the layers of deceit are peeled off, we're left with anemic examples that fall apart. I'll be posting many more such examples of macro evolutionists 'best examples' a bit later, such as insertion points of viruses in both apes and man show a link between the two species because... blah blah blah... these retroviruses must have been passed down from generation to generation, and since man has SIMILAR retroviruses, this must therefore mean the two are related" (they do not, but show a bias of the virus for certain similar insertion points- period- and show common design, not common descent, and htere is MUCH that macroevos LEAVE OUT when makign htis claim- such as how similar species would be susceptible to very similar viruses seeings how there are millions of viruses bombarding every species, and it coudl very well be that the two species coexisting in the same region, fully formed, fully functional completed species of unique but somehwhat similar designs, woudl be susceptible to similar viruses- (this they will NOT cede- ever it appears) and Nylon degradation by bacteria show evolution in action- it does NOT and I'll show exactly why later- this was another highly deceptive argument put forth by macroevos which intentionally HIDES the FACTS of nylon degradation by bacteria- But you wouldn't;'t know this when reading the over-reaching, broad, deceptive claims of macroevos because they INTENTIONALLY misled everyone by NOT presenting ALL the facts)

173 posted on 03/13/2009 10:22:48 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

We’re not talking ‘theories’ here Tactic- and you are SERIOUSLY misrepresenting Creationism and ID by tryign to extrapolate a few moot examples of mistakes or innacuracies posted by sites that do NOT represent the movement’s sciences, but rather simply report on the sciences, and you are trying apply these few example to the whole theories’ evidences and sciences. IF you are goign to simply wave away the whole of Creationism and ID based on the OPINIONS of individuals from lay sites that exist OUTSIDE OF THE ACTUAL EVIDENCES of the sciences of ID and creationism, then you are goign to HAVE to dismiss ALL sites like Talkorigins, Darwin central, panda’s thumb, DU and others- and MANY scientific journals as well which all have severely deceived, intentionally, and have voiced their OPINIONS that exist outside of the actual evidences.

We’re discussing hte actual evidences here Tactic- I’m not itnerested in your biased opinion of Creationism or ID- We ALL know how you feel about them- you’ve repeated tyour false claims many many times ghere on FR- what we’re discussing here however is the actual evidences and whether they hold up under careful objective scrutiny or not.

IF you want ot discuss which sites are more intentionally deceitful, then start another thread and I’ll be happy to point out the blatant intentional deceit of sites like Talkorigins which claims to have 29 evidences for macroevolution but for hwich every one of htose 29 ‘evidences for macroevolution’ was ripped to shreds by Timothy Wallace at TRUEORIGINS who monitors the DECEIT of Talkorigins and exposes them as the chal’rlatans they are, and we’ll see just which sites are really deceiving people- Your claims of ‘deceit’ at sites like answers ion genesis are based on actual deceitful ‘rebutals’ which have been exposed over and over again as the lies that htey really are- so yeah- you wanna start an argument about who is being intentionally deceitful, then start another thread- your argumetns will be destroyed in a quick hurry!

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp


174 posted on 03/13/2009 10:35:11 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

Soothsayer- metainfo was discussed in detail in this thread (It’s a very long thread, but a LOT of invaluable info was presented there showing how ALL of life is irreducible, not just certain systems like Behe has expressed)- Be sure to give it a read- metainfo can NOT arise via mistakes in nature, and metainfo is absolutely necessary BEFORE any changes can take place in any meaninful manner in species- it’s a VERY itneresting thread- well worth the time to read throgugh) Chemicals can NOT self assemble into anythign intelligently combined enough to even begin hte hypothetical process of macroevolution- there HAS to be a system of metainformation inplace BEFORE any changes can take place- this metainfo- (info about info) is quite amazing really, and we know it contributes to a species specific parameter system that prevents manipulation beyond these limits, and is coded to protect species kinds from losing fitness and from moving beyond hteir own kinds as discussed in the thread- you’ll find your explanation for species specific info in there as well

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163122/posts


175 posted on 03/13/2009 10:43:25 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

What kind of evidence, exactly, are you demanding? The field of evolutionary biology is only 200 years old. We would probably need to study life on Earth for thousands and possibly even millions of years from now to observe considerable biological divergence (or nothing). We can observe some speciation (particularly among bacteria) in our lifetimes but nothing too radical.

Is this really a fair demand? I’m not going to argue that evolution is definitively proven, it isn’t. It could all be completely wrong. Heck there is even a small chance that 6 day creationism could be correct! The problem is that ID hasn’t offered any data or explanations for how a complex life-form can be constructed within days. No one is telling us how God may have done the deed. What were the physical forces involved? What was the chemistry? What equations will be used instead of those for radiometric dating? etc etc

These are tough question to answer but until someone starts gathering serious data, evolution is the best theory we have. Wish I was rich enough to perform or fund ID experiments but I’m not. I’m also not educated enough or clever enough to know how to start testing such a hypothesis.

If you could show me some ID experimental studies (if they exist), I would much appreciate it as I have yet to find any.


176 posted on 03/13/2009 12:32:34 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
We’re discussing hte actual evidences here Tactic- I’m not itnerested in your biased opinion of Creationism or ID- We ALL know how you feel about them- you’ve repeated tyour false claims many many times ghere on FR- what we’re discussing here however is the actual evidences and whether they hold up under careful objective scrutiny or not.

What "false claims" have I made, and what exactly is the evidence you're referring to?

177 posted on 03/13/2009 1:17:26 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

“IF the fossil records show discontinuity, then that is what it shows- period- to go beyond the actual evidence and claim it shows continuity when you don’t have the slightest evidence to show it does is NOT science”

In science we pick the most parsimonious explanation. The goal is to acquire knowledge, not to have it from the very beginning. We almost certainly do NOT currently possess the complete record of all life that ever existed on Earth. If we get lucky, we’ll one day uncover all the fossils that happened to survive the geological activity.

1. My bachelor’s thesis was on the endosymbiotic theory for the origin of mitochondria and eukaryotes. This is a hotly debated question among evolutionary biologists. We don’t yet have an explanation that accounts for all the data. Who knows, maybe God made eukaryotes by a mechanism that creationists may some day discover? If you or someone else wants to do real ID science, maybe this is the place to start right now!

2. No one is making the claim that antibiotic resistance is the same as speciation if that is what you are getting at. The role of horizontal gene transfer in the possible evolution of obligate bacterial species is hotly debated right now.

3. You are actually correct about this. They claimed that Sinosauropteryx, a fossil found in 1994 by a farmer in Liaoning province, northeastern China was a feathered dinosaur. Their experimental methods were flawed and they now regard the “feathers” as tough fibers of dermal collagen.

“Despite all this, there is nothing to preclude the idea that reptiles couldn’t infact have feathers for such things as displaying rituals, warmth”

No one is precluding it, quite the contrary. Evolutionary biologists regard the original function of feathers to be just that. Some bird lineages evolved the structures necessary for flight and others didn’t, using feathers for warmth.

4. “As well, a deleterious mutation, regardless of any slight positive effects it might accidentally provide, are NOT the mechanism through which macroevolution works.”

No one is arguing that all life on Earth is getting progressively more complex or that genomes are getting bigger and bigger. There are unicellular organisms which have enormous genomes in the billions of base pairs. Likewise, there are simple unicellular organisms that are better suited to their environment (their niche) than larger life-forms.

“Sickle Cell causes more deaths than it saves, and is a serious detriment”

Not if their is an outbreak of Malaria. It provides great resistance if only one allele contains the gene.

“There is also nothing to say mutations can not result in slight gains or advantages but it MUST be noted that these fall squarely within DESIGNED species specific parameters”

Are you trying to say that organisms are genetically programmed to mutate? If so, that’s not a mutation. I’m confused.

“and are NOT a net gain of new non species specific info NEEDED by macroevolution.”

There are sometimes insertions and duplications of DNA nucleotides/codons during transcription. This is very significant in many cases. Are you trying to say that only the length of a nucleotide sequence affects the amino acid/protein product?

5. I agree that the fossil record does not represent the complete record of life on Earth and I’ve already stated that geological forces destroy fossils.

“This chart is such a deceitful chart, that one would think the scientists that invented it would be ashamed to be exposed for the charlatans they are WHEN they got caught!”

There is a differences between being deliberately deceitful and working with the evidence that we are fortunate enough to possess. Name-calling is also a pretty bad way to argue. Remember that Monty Python skit “ argument clinic”?

“#1, there is NO proof of a relationship between the ‘earliest’ fishes to land animals”

Don’t leave amphibians out of the picture.

“How about them 1000 or 10,000 or so OTHER TRASITIONALS in between the HUGELY different two species that MUST have existed while this supposed evolution was going on? Where are they?”

They are totally aware of this fact. If we get lucky, more transitional fossils will be discovered in the future. Or course, that’s assuming that they haven’t been destroyed by the very real geological activity.

6. “As well, the differences are in the billions”

Differences of what are in the billions?

“Macroevolutionists have no answer as the relatively ‘short’ period of time that evos claim man and ape diverged, could NOT account for these differences genetically.”

Are you referring to the molecular clock? There are ways of testing whether or not base pair divergence in species somewhat correlates with a molecular clock. One method is the relative rate test. In the case of hominoids, the differences between the rhesus monkey and the various hominoids ranges from 806 (to Orangutan) to 767 (human). Molecular clocks are generally inexact but the trend indicates a slight slow-down in molecular divergence. Also, the relative rate test, applied to DNA sequence data from various organisms, has shown that rates of sequence evolution are often quite similar among taxa that are fairly closely related. However, distantly related taxa often have rather different evolutionary rates. For example, the rate of sequence evolution in rodents is two to three times greater than primates.

Of course, molecular clocks have very little to do with morphological divergence considering the existence of pleisiomorphic genes.

7. 2nd law is not just about contact geometry, that’s only a small piece of it. Chemicals maintain their bonds so long as energy is applied below the activation energy (Ea). I only took general physics and chemistry while in college so I can’t really discuss the higher mathematics.

1) “What are the specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes that led from zero such conversion capability in raw matter to the multiple and varied mechanisms and processes that are inherent in every living organism as we know them?”

Are you asking about the origin of living systems? I don’t know. That is a frontier for modern biology.

2) “Evolution calls for the development of ever more volume and ever greater variety and complexity of data in the genetic code of living organisms as they allegedly first emerged, then progressed from, simplest forms to the present broad spectrum of variety. “

No, it calls for advantageous adaptions to ecosystem niches. Sometimes simple unicellular life-forms can fare better in environments hostile to larger, more complex organisms. Look at the little chemotropic creatures living at the bottom of the ocean trenches or the worm that can survive the vacuum of space. Amazing!

8. “The bones, wrist, and structure of bones could NOT support the fish’s weight on land, or even underwater on the bottom.”

How did you (or someone else) come to this conclusion? Tiktaalik had a rather robust ribcage and large muscle facets. It’s just a hypothesis anyway, no one was around to witness the late Devonian period.

9. “I’ll be posting many more such examples of macro evolutionists ‘best examples’ a bit later, such as insertion points of viruses in both apes and man show a link between the two species because... blah blah blah... these retroviruses must have been passed down from generation to generation, and since man has SIMILAR retroviruses, this must therefore mean the two are related”

Those are not the “best examples” that I would use. They seem rather irrelevant.


178 posted on 03/13/2009 2:45:21 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
9: I'll stop here for now, as there is much much more I've personally investigated and found to be severely wanting. your claim that there is 'plenty of deceptive arguments' in the creationist ID camp is a false one based on a few websites which do NOT represent the actual sciences of Creationism or ID

Exactly which web sites are my "false claims" based on?

179 posted on 03/13/2009 3:35:20 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

[[Some bird lineages evolved the structures necessary for flight and others didn’t, using feathers for warmth.]]

Really? Got any evidence showing these evolutionary miracles? Didn’t htink so- just more a priori assumoptions

[[If we get lucky, we’ll one day uncover all the fossils that happened to survive the geological activity.]]

Swell cop out-

[[If you or someone else wants to do real ID science, maybe this is the place to start right now!]]

Sure- ‘real science’ accordign to whom? Those who DON’T follow the evidence and stop when it’s prudent to do so? Those who extrapolate fantastic scenarios from evidences that don’t warrent doing so? Golly- could I become a story-teller too? Thanks- but I’ll stick to just investigating the actual evidences instead of dreaming up scenrios that include ignroing biological, mathematical, chemical and natural llaws.

[[2. No one is making the claim that antibiotic resistance is the same as speciation if that is what you are getting at.]]

You might want ot read FR a bit more carefully if that’s what you htinkj- PLENTY of peopel here have asserted just that.

[[The role of horizontal gene transfer in the possible evolution of obligate bacterial species is hotly debated right now.]]

Swell- but hte point still remains- the ONLY way for a species to achieve new non species specific info that is an absolute MUST in macroevolution, is via lateral gene transference- in ALL species- however, we can’t even discover that it happens outside of bacteria

[[Likewise, there are simple unicellular organisms that are better suited to their environment (their niche) than larger life-forms.]]

Yeah? Aint microevolution neato?

[[Not if their is an outbreak of Malaria. It provides great resistance if only one allele contains the gene.]]

Net loss does not a ‘positive mutation’ make no matter how you slice it- as well, it’s still just that- a mutaiton- Macroevolution is impossible via RS+M

[[Are you trying to say that organisms are genetically programmed to mutate?]]

NO- They are programmed to deal with mutations- big difference

[[Are you trying to say that only the length of a nucleotide sequence affects the amino acid/protein product?]]

No- I said what I said

[[There is a differences between being deliberately deceitful and working with the evidence that we are fortunate enough to possess.]]

That chart is DELIBERATELY deceitful- those skulls are all drawn the same size when the FACT is that they drew a rat sized aquatic species next to a hippo sized animal skull, and made it INTENTIONALLY look like there was a nice neat progression of the jaw bone between very similar species which was NOT the case at all- this isn’t ‘working with hte evidence’ this was blatant deceit!

[[They are totally aware of this fact. If we get lucky, more transitional fossils will be discovered in the future. Or course, that’s assuming that they haven’t been destroyed by the very real geological activity.]]

Nother nice cop out- At least there are some scientsits who study species that are honest enough to admit there whould be reams of evidence IF macroevolution happened and millions of species supposedly gradually changed- the sad fact is htough that ALL we find are fully completed fully functional species in the myriad fossils we do have. Not one single instance of gradual morphological change- just a LOT of assumptions about completed species.

[[Differences of what are in the billions?]]

The remarkable similarity among the genomes of humans and the African great apes could warrant their classification together as a single genus. However, whereas there are many similarities in the biology, life history, and behavior of humans and great apes, there are also many striking differences that need to be explained. The complete sequencing of the human genome creates an opportunity to ask which genes are involved in those differences. A logical approach would be to use the chimpanzee genome for comparison and the other great ape genomes for confirmation. Until such a great ape genome project can become reality, the next best approach must be educated guesses of where the genetic differences may lie and a careful analysis of differences that we do know about. Our group recently discovered a human-specific inactivating mutation in the CMP-sialic acid hydroxylase gene, which results in the loss of expression of a common mammalian cell-surface sugar throughout all cells in the human body. We are currently investigating the implications of this difference for a variety of issues relevant to humans, ranging from pathogen susceptibility to brain development. Evaluating the uniqueness of this finding has also led us to explore the existing literature on the broader issue of genetic differences between humans and great apes. The aim of this brief review is to consider a listing of currently known genetic differences between humans and great apes and to suggest avenues for future research. The differences reported between human and great ape genomes include cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-456JS82-3X&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=74c145cd4ff3a5b7e46430e86e9a0ac9

[[For example, the rate of sequence evolution in rodents is two to three times greater than primates.]]

You are talking about MICROEvolutionary change NOT macroevolutionary change- there is no evidence for macroevolution- so this ‘rate’ can’t even begin to be measured- even with imaginary scenarios of change.

[[Of course, molecular clocks have very little to do with morphological divergence considering the existence of pleisiomorphic genes.]]

Admission? Nah- could’nt be.

[[Are you asking about the origin of living systems? I don’t know. That is a frontier for modern biology.]]

I’m not askign anyhting- I gave a link that fully explained and exposed the rediculousness of the idea that open systems are any better for living systems than closed ones based on crystal formations.

[[No, it calls for advantageous adaptions to ecosystem niches.]]

No, it calls for ever increasing self assembling complexities of NEW non species specific systems, a process that violates entropy rules as laid out in that link I provided

[[Sometimes simple unicellular life-forms can fare better in environments hostile to larger, more complex organisms.]]

This is absolutely irrelevent to the discussion, and nothign but a rabbirt trail to avoid the problem of macroevolution and hte second law.

[[How did you (or someone else) come to this conclusion? Tiktaalik had a rather robust ribcage and large muscle facets.]]

You’re leavign out the next part... and only had bones structures in it’s lobes that could not support their weight

[[It’s just a hypothesis anyway, no one was around to witness the late Devonian period.]]

JUST a theory? It’s one of the mainstays of claims for macroevolution. The Caelocanth (sp?) was once though to have been transitional because of their unique lobes, however, when one turned up, was observed, it was quickly determined it coudl NOT infact support it’s weight with it’s lobed fins, and was thrown out as the previously insisted upon transitional that science assured us existed in hte fossil records- Turns out Tiktaalik is just another lobe-finned fish with structural innadequacies the same way Caelocanth had.

[[Those are not the “best examples” that I would use. They seem rather irrelevant.]]

Those are just hte begiinning, and are hte oens most brought up here and in science books that our kids are ‘taught’ (Religious propoganda is more like it, but we’ll use ‘taught’ for now)


180 posted on 03/13/2009 4:54:01 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

[[The field of evolutionary biology is only 200 years old.]]

Lol- ‘only 200 years old’ yet it’s made up of scientists of the brightest minds that have been exploring it for these 200 years, and with recent advances are no closer to understanding how a species could macroevoluve.. nother cop out.

[[We would probably need to study life on Earth for thousands and possibly even millions of years from now to observe considerable biological divergence (or nothing). ]]

Why is that? We have supposedly billions of years worth of fossil records, and ALL we find are compelted fully functioning species, and no evidence for macroevolution- just minor microevolutionary change. How long do you need?

[[We can observe some speciation (particularly among bacteria) in our lifetimes but nothing too radical.]]

Yep- microevolution is cool- Bacteria are still bacteria of hte same kind- no matter how many mutaitons we throw at them- they won’t evovle wings because the info simply is not htere for them to do so- All that can be accomplished is manipulation of hte info already present, and htis has species specific limitations, all precoded, all predesigned, and which protect the uniqueness of each species kind.

[[The problem is that ID hasn’t offered any data or explanations for how a complex life-form can be constructed within days.]]

answer below

[[No one is telling us how God may have done the deed.]]

Two points- YES they ARE showing How God constructed- You REALLY need to read that thread about “Life’s Irreducible Complexities” I pointed you to- It lays out how metainfo comes first, and hten shows the lower hierarchies, and htere relations, as well there are several other htreads here on FR showing how IC is constructed. Heck- Even the Rabid anti-ID scientist Miller showed how IC is intelligently constructed when he went step by step through his carefully explained, carefully constructed ‘natural evolution’ of higher complexity blood clotting- the only problem was that He perfectly described HOW God intelligently constructed a designed IC system- this was a very detailed analysis of blood clotting and al lthe subsystems involved, and how htey ‘could have’ formed and come into play while meshing with the species whole systems without causing problems- but again- it was a VERY complex, intelligently designed and cosntructed process. Miller defeated his own claim with his argument- it was kinda amusing, and sad really that he couldn’t recognize what he was doing in his argument.

[[What equations will be used instead of those for radiometric dating?]]

How about equations that follow the evidences and don’t rely on ASSUMPTIONS? Problem is for Macroevolutionists, the ONLY dating method that even comes close to adhering to the evidences is radio carbon dating, although even htis method steps outside of science by ASSUMING dates beyond 10,000 or so years as htere are NO corroberating known dates to judge by- ONLY assumptions!

[[Wish I was rich enough to perform or fund ID experiments but I’m not. I’m also not educated enough or clever enough to know how to start testing such a hypothesis.]]

Ditto- ID NEEDS to be funded more- AND it NEEDS to form one major group that studies just hte science and reports the facts. While religious beleifs are fine, they should be given outside of the strict science of ID, because ID is an honerable science that sticks to the actual mandates of sciecne when it is done objectively. Sites like IRC are fine, but htey are NOT the mainstay of ID sciecne as a whole, strict science. The site is fine for those who search for God, and don’t mind opinions mixed with the science, but I beleive ID could nd should be doen strictly scientifically because it has a lot to offer-

There are some organizations that do just htis- strict ID science, but it’s loosely organized, and the majority of ID knowledge is gained through sites like IRC which infuse the science with opinion, and peopel assume since they are the major online site for ID, that htey represent the science of ID- they do not- they simply report the science (As well as conduct some htemselves) but also again, they infuse their science with opinions that lay outside of the science (BUT then again, doesn’t ALL science do that?) They arem ostly a repotorting and opining site though. There is sound science presented there and on other such sites, but it’s heavy with opinion too, and hard to dig through, but worth the effort sometimes.

BBut I( truly would like to see one major site that presents just hte strict science of ID Which doesn’t have to posit who or what the intelligence is, but simply present enough evidences to show a NEED for an intelligence- which is hte goal of any forensic science


181 posted on 03/13/2009 5:18:57 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

You don’t care about phylogeny and you demand a complete fossil record even though much of it was lost through time. This is not a “cop out”, this is the geological reality. I COULD refer to many things in religion as a “cop out” but I’m giving it all the benefit of the doubt.

I have ceded to your questions thus far and you have totally ignored the only big question that I posed to you:

Where is your data pointing out the creation of whole lifeforms within days?

I honestly want to see it. That is your position isn’t it?

Until you start coughing up the data, I’m not going to give you any more of mine. These are the terms.


182 posted on 03/13/2009 5:57:21 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I’ve already responded to all those statements, how many times do I have to repeat myself?


183 posted on 03/13/2009 6:00:03 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

“Really? Got any evidence showing these evolutionary miracles? Didn’t htink so- just more a priori assumoptions”

Do I really have to explain everything?

Burgers, P., and Chiappe, L.M. (1999) The wings of Archaeopteryx as a primary thrust generator. Nature, 399, 60-62.

Chiappe, L.M. (1995) The first 85 million years of avian evolution. Nature, 378, 349-355.

Chinsamy, A., and Elzanowski, A. (2001) Evolution of growth pattern in birds. Nature, 412, 402-403 (26 Jul).

Erickson, G.M., Rogers, K.C., and Yerby, S.A. (2001) Dinosaurian growth patterns and rapid avian growth rates. Nature, 412, 429-432 (26 Jul).

Norell, M.A., and Clarke, J.A. (2001) Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution. Nature, 409, 181-184.

Padian, K., Ricqles, A.J. de, and Horner, J.R (2001) Dinosaurian growth rates and bird origins. Nature, 412, 405-408 (26 Jul).

Speakman, J.R., and Thomson, S.C. (1994) Flight capabilities of Archaeopteryx. Nature, 370, 514.

Unwin, D.M. (1998) Feathers, filaments, and theropod dinosaurs. Nature, 391, 119-120.

Wong, K. (2002) Taking wing. Scientific American, (January), 14-15.

Xu, X., Zhou, Z., and Wang, X. (2000) The smallest known theropod dinosaur. Nature, 408, 705-708.

“Swell cop out”

No, the reality. If I was not interested in your religion, I would make the same types of accusations.

“Sure- ‘real science’ accordign to whom?”

According to those who go out into the field and work very hard to gather data for months or even years at a time rather then just sitting in an arm-chair.

“You might want ot read FR a bit more carefully if that’s what you htinkj- PLENTY of peopel here have asserted just that.”

I was refering to those in the field.

“Swell- but hte point still remains- the ONLY way for a species to achieve new non species specific info that is an absolute MUST in macroevolution, is via lateral gene transference- in ALL species- however, we can’t even discover that it happens outside of bacteria”

I have already discussed the different types of mutations. Did you bother to look them up?

“Yeah? Aint microevolution neato?”

There is no difference between the processes that lead to small changes and the processes that lead to enough small changes to eventually amount to big ones.

“Net loss does not a ‘positive mutation’ make no matter how you slice it- as well, it’s still just that- a mutaiton- Macroevolution is impossible via RS+M”

What does that have to do with my comment? Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent my statement? You realize that I can read previous posts don’t you?

“NO- They are programmed to deal with mutations- big difference”

No-the editing and processing nucleases occassionally fail. Of course, you are not even going to bother to look this up.

“No- I said what I said”

What you said continues to make no sense to me.

“That chart is DELIBERATELY deceitful- those skulls are all drawn the same size when the FACT is that they drew a rat sized aquatic species next to a hippo sized animal skull, and made it INTENTIONALLY look like there was a nice neat progression of the jaw bone between very similar species which was NOT the case at all- this isn’t ‘working with hte evidence’ this was blatant deceit!”

You are angry because they didn’t draw comparative structures to scale?

“Nother nice cop out- At least there are some scientsits who study species that are honest enough to admit there whould be reams of evidence IF macroevolution happened and millions of species supposedly gradually changed”

In an alternate universe, all deceased lifeforms are preserved in magical jars rather than being mostly torn to pieces by moving sediment layers. We do not live in that alternate universe.

“Not one single instance of gradual morphological change”

the whole field of phylogenetic systematics. I’ve already discussed the different ways that genes affect morphology.

“The remarkable similarity among the genomes of humans and the African great apes...The differences reported between human and great ape genomes include cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations. “

I agree

“You are talking about MICROEvolutionary change NOT macroevolutionary change- there is no evidence for macroevolution- so this ‘rate’ can’t even begin to be measured- even with imaginary scenarios of change.”

A macroevolutionary change is simply lots and lots of microevolutionary changes involving genes and environment. You demand time travel evidence so there isn’t anything more to say about this.

“Admission? Nah- could’nt be.”

You weren’t even paying attention to what I was writing.

“I’m not askign anyhting- I gave a link that fully explained and exposed the rediculousness of the idea that open systems are any better for living systems than closed ones based on crystal formations.”

The implications of the 2nd law are incredibly complicated. No real need to worry about crystal formations. We are discussing living systems here. A living system needs energy for chemical reactions but not too much energy in the wrong place or that will denature the proteins.

“No, it calls for ever increasing self assembling complexities of NEW non species specific systems, a process that violates entropy rules as laid out in that link I provided”

Why should I argue with a definition that you made up? This is getting silly.

“This is absolutely irrelevent to the discussion, and nothign but a rabbirt trail to avoid the problem of macroevolution and hte second law.”

That’s evidence of simpler organisms that are more advantageous in their environment than many complex organisms.

“You’re leavign out the next part... and only had bones structures in it’s lobes that could not support their weight”

I was asking how you managed to figure that out. So how?

“JUST a theory?”

The sentence I wrote is just one push of the enter key away. I wrote “hypothesis”. Do you know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory? Hint: they are NOT the same.

“Turns out Tiktaalik is just another lobe-finned fish with structural innadequacies the same way Caelocanth had.”

That would be very enlightening if true so where are you getting this information?


184 posted on 03/13/2009 6:50:29 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

“Lol- ‘only 200 years old’ yet it’s made up of scientists of the brightest minds that have been exploring it for these 200 years, and with recent advances are no closer to understanding how a species could macroevoluve.. nother cop out.”

They did a remarkably good job despite the lack of time machine.

“Why is that? We have supposedly billions of years worth of fossil records, and ALL we find are compelted fully functioning species, and no evidence for macroevolution- just minor microevolutionary change. How long do you need?”

You are not interested in phylogeny or our attempts at gathering together the fossil record. That leaves us only with real-time experiments.

“Yep- microevolution is cool- Bacteria are still bacteria of hte same kind- no matter how many mutaitons we throw at them- they won’t evovle wings because the info simply is not htere for them to do so- All that can be accomplished is manipulation of hte info already present, and htis has species specific limitations, all precoded, all predesigned, and which protect the uniqueness of each species kind.”

You reject all species definitions so how can I possibly argue that new species originate in our lifetime? .

“..You REALLY need to read that thread about “Life’s Irreducible Complexities” I pointed you to...:”

I’ll check it out in a little while.

“How about equations that follow the evidences and don’t rely on ASSUMPTIONS?”

Radioactive decay is only an assumption? I will address your previous links separately.

“ID NEEDS to be funded more”

I look forward to it.


185 posted on 03/13/2009 7:15:27 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Some of those articles make good arguments although not yet conclusive. They may very well re-consider the pre-historic ages.

The first article is bunk though. Radiometric dating was discovered by Henri Becquerel and Marie Curie.


186 posted on 03/13/2009 7:30:23 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; All

I don’t know enough about physics to address this effectively but it may very well be that radiometric dating and other methods are too flawed.

Anyone here a physicist or a chemist?


187 posted on 03/13/2009 7:45:19 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

don’t fall for it. It will only make you look really, really stupid. let it slide.


188 posted on 03/13/2009 7:48:27 PM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
If evolution happened, the God of the Bible is not real.

So....

Let me get this straight, and feel free to correct me if I don't have the grasp of what you are attempting to convey:

The Lord of the Universe, the creator of everything, that literally means EVERY THING, the creator of the Earth, the stars, the very billions of galaxies and everything contained, that Creator, he simply ceases to exist if some puny humans on a small planet on some indescript rock revolving around one of literally trillions of stars he created actually dare to come up with a theory as to how things ended up the way they currently are, is that the creator you are saying simply is not real if evolution is a fact?

Surely you are wound a little tight? If not, how deep is your faith, really?

What if, just a question mind you, what if He was the intelligent designer of evolution? What then, do we (you, or I or anyone else) disown Him?

189 posted on 03/13/2009 8:15:47 PM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

[[Radioactive decay is only an assumption?]]

I’m getting tired tonight- hard to htink, so will only address a couple things- No radioactive decay is constant, in the right conditions, however, we have no idea what past conditions were- that’s where the assumptions come in

[[You are not interested in phylogeny or our attempts at gathering together the fossil record.]]

I’m not? I find this all fascinating- I’m mearly pointing out that it is based on a religious a priori belief however- and as someone said earlier, there seems to be a switch goign on in evolution camps toward genetic ‘continuancies’ but hte truth is, many key scientific comparisons go into trying to piece thigns together- the problem is that it’s still heavily invovled in a priori assumptions with no evidence to back the ‘connections’ up.

[[You reject all species definitions so how can I possibly argue that new species originate in our lifetime?]]

I do? On the contrary, I do accept species definitions- what I don’t accept though is the idea that kidns are of no relevence when scientific disciplines such as Baraminolog who, and animal husbandry show, that kidns are indeed a relavent classification, and that discontinuity is shown both in the records, and in experiments we’ve recently conducted.- There are many species of gulls, and even speciated species such as ring gulls which have lost so much info they can no logner breed with orther gulls within their own kinds, however, they are still gulls, gulls who have hit the limit of species specific paramters. The fossil record is absent any evidence showing say that gulls became another kind- they simply remained gulls though.

[[I look forward to it.]]

Yeah me too- I personally beleive it’s an important discipline when done objectively- I’ve always admired forensic science, and marvel at how precise it can be, and I think ID science can and infact is just as precise when just hte science is presented (Although I certainly don’t mind, or even dissagree with opinions of htose that beleive God is the creator, I just personally think ID science would be better served just serving up the science evidence which itis my beleief that it will stand firmly on it’s own merrits- soem folks however go to great lengths to ‘dress it up’ with opinions- it doesn’t need any dressing up in my opinion, and would I think even strengthen beliefs if just left to it’s own credit)


190 posted on 03/13/2009 8:21:40 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

and by hte way- thanks for keeping htis civil- I over-reacted, I know, but I’m always on the defensive here I guess as many people just come in here attackign ID with hte same tired out lame broad generalizations time and itme again- it just gets tiring- You’ve not doen so, and I beleive you honestly beleive what you do and respect that- Thanks for a pelasant discussion- I’ll refrain from making broad genralized opinions as much as I can as well, although I’m sorta infused with answering others in like manner when they subtly do nothign but attack ID and creationism with nothign more than fluff and refuted arguements I’m afraid


191 posted on 03/13/2009 8:25:48 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: going hot

[[What if, just a question mind you, what if He was the intelligent designer of evolution?]]

Then there woudl be evidence of it and we wouldn’;t be desperately grasping at examples of microevolution as htough it were macroevolution, which it isn’t- there woudl be ample evidences of actual macroevolution- Nuff said


192 posted on 03/13/2009 8:27:27 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

[[Where is your data pointing out the creation of whole lifeforms within days?]]

Right next to your copy of the instructions showing how macroevolution beat out all the scientific impossibilites stacked against it of course-

[[Until you start coughing up the data, I’m not going to give you any more of mine. These are the terms.]]

Lol- while you get a free pass and don’t have to cough up actual evidences of macoreovlution- All you have to do is present MICROEvolution and claim “Accumulations of microevolution ‘could have’ led to macroevolution’- how convenient for you huh?


193 posted on 03/13/2009 8:30:55 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Nuff said

I really, really do enjoy your posts.

Heck, sometimes me and a couple of collegues will actually sit around, pop a few beers, and look for your posts, they are so , so, thought provoking. Please do not stop.

194 posted on 03/13/2009 8:34:38 PM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

Ugggh- another long post to respond to-

first of all, all those links are NOT evidences- they are a priori ASSUMPTIONS and wild imaginary scenarios plain and simple. As I said- ‘Real science’ according to who? Those who are great storytellers and just happen to have an a priori religious belief in macorevolution and hte power of nature to ‘just do it’?

[[According to those who go out into the field and work very hard to gather data for months or even years at a time rather then just sitting in an arm-chair.]]

Ah- I see- so field workers imaginations are more ‘scientific’ than are arm chair investiogators? How do you know htis? Have you asked me to make up a story yet? I’ll bet you’ll be quite surprised should you ask- I have an active imagiantion too ya know!

[[I have already discussed the different types of mutations. Did you bother to look them up?]]

I’ve not only looked htem up, but have discussed those claims in detail in many htreads here i nthe past- my answer still stands

[[There is no difference between the processes that lead to small changes and the processes that lead to enough small changes to eventually amount to big ones.]]

And you called me silly? Of course there is a difference- you can’t get new non species specific info by simply modifying info already present in a species that is precoded to have limitation boundaries. You MUST introduce non species specific info from a ‘higher’ source- but as we know, there were no ‘higher sources’ of complexity available to draw from if we’re to think molecules turned into man Mind just briefly running htrough the process of simple chemical assemblies turning into highly complex info for say wings? Or hearing? or Skin? or any number of other complex systems? You demanded I provide a precise biolgoical breakdown of how a Creator created previously, so I’ll throw the ball right back in your court and ask you to provide those examples of chemical arrangements self organizing, mutating,. and evolving complex self assembling complex systems- and remember, we’re literally talking that this must have occured trillions of times for each and every macroevolutionary change, so surely you will be able to provide good examples starting from the very basics of early evolution?

[[You realize that I can read previous posts don’t you?]]

Woops- You can? Shhhh Don’t tell anyone- don’t want anyone catchign onto my tactics

[[the whole field of phylogenetic systematics. I’ve already discussed the different ways that genes affect morphology.]]

you did? Was that in another thread that’s being kept secret from me? Because I certainly saw no such discussion here.

[[You weren’t even paying attention to what I was writing.]]

I’m sorry- what did you say?

[[No-the editing and processing nucleases occassionally fail.]]

And that has to do with hte price of tea in china how again? Programmed systems aren’t allowed to fail otherwise they are noty to be concidered programmed? you’re trapsing far from the trail here-

[[You are angry because they didn’t draw comparative structures to scale?]]

Lol- yeah, that’s it- the deception is all just in my head- there was no intentional deception goign on there at ll- nothign to see here folks- move right along- Silly me. Kids will instantly realize hte two species are the wrong size, and automatically know that millions of years supposedly seperate the two ‘closely related different sized species’ and will.... oh wait- no they won’t- the chart makes NO mention of htose little facts- but wait- there’s no itnentional deception... but wait- maybe hterew might be.... but htere couldn’t be... blah blah blah.

[[We are discussing living systems here. A living system needs energy for chemical reactions but not too much energy in the wrong place or that will denature the proteins.]]

Yes indeed we are- however, this admission does nothign to support hte idea that species somehow miraculously escaped entropy at every single stage of macroevolution, and pointing to an ‘open system’ just makes matters worse, not better- it’s all explained in the link to trueorigins I linked you to.

[[Why should I argue with a definition that you made up? This is getting silly.]]

Yep- it’s made up but it ACCURATELY and PRTECISELY depicts the real problems associated with macroevolution in a way that ‘species’ and ‘similarities’ can not even begin to describe. But if you want ot just wave it aside, I’ll understand- hard to defend a dying hypothesis I’m sure. No sense treading out onto thin ice to do so- too risky- You may be excused from this discussion.

[[ I wrote “hypothesis”. Do you know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory? Hint: they are NOT the same.]]

My apologies- I thought you said theory- I write quickly with lots of htoughts goign on at once and lost track of what you actually wrote- do I know hte difference? Of course, a hypothesis is what you get when it’s too cold outside, and your toes turn black and fall off, a hteory is what you get when you watch a running segment of shows- a theory of shows

[[That would be very enlightening if true so where are you getting this information?]]

youy’ll find it on the net by htose hwo have studied the structures first hand- Safarati is the name coming ot mind right now, might be someone else- Do I really gotta spend all night looking it up? Whiel I’m doign so, would you mind findign info that states they coudl infact bear hteir weight? I’ll wait


195 posted on 03/13/2009 8:58:49 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: going hot

I know you enjoy my posts hot- there’s no need to state the obvious- I know you couldn’t live without htem- losta folks can’t, that’s why they bait and salt their posts to me- hoping to egg me on- but at least they are gettign hte truth, and learnign how Macroevolution deceives people- which is my main goal in posting here on FR- Exposing hte lies brought to you, I and our children in the name of Darwinian ideology. So yeah- maybe ya better run out and buy a couple of cases of beer so you won’t have to miss anything when running to hte store for more when you cache runs dry.


196 posted on 03/14/2009 8:58:14 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

“[[No-the editing and processing nucleases occassionally fail.]]

And that has to do with hte price of tea in china how again? Programmed systems aren’t allowed to fail otherwise they are noty to be concidered programmed? you’re trapsing far from the trail here-”

My statement was not about evolution per se, it is a basic fact of cell biology. You do not want to discuss the roles of genes and proteins in living systems. I’m not even sure you acknowledge the existence of anything in modern science other than the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, I will argue on your metaphysical terms in a private reply.


197 posted on 03/14/2009 9:03:29 AM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

[[You do not want to discuss the roles of genes and proteins in living systems.]]

Oh contraire- you’ve not asked anyhtign in particular- the discussion is about Macroevolution, not microevolution, so if you have soem eviddence that shows macroevolutionary change at hte genetic level, then present it- All I’ve seen from you thus far are statements about microevolution

[[My statement was not about evolution per se, it is a basic fact of cell biology.]]

Swell- But aGAIN, we’re talking claims of macroevolution, so not sure why your running from the trail in all directions? I broguht up the fact that chemicals can NOT account for metainformation, and I’ll bring up the fact that nature is simply incapable of creating PURE chemical assemblies out of hte dirty chemicals found in nature, YET, what do we see in living systems? Yup- PURE chemical assemblies atthe lowest levels. Care to explain to us all how nature managed to refine hte dirty chemicals in nature when it miraculously created all life from pond scum?

[[I’m not even sure you acknowledge the existence of anything in modern science other than the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.]]

That’s because oyu haven’t asked anythign relavent to this discussion- all you’ve done is demand precision while fully ignoring hte imprecision of the broad generalized claims of Macroevolutionists. I’ll reserve the term ‘hypocrisy’ until more time has passed, and see whether you still insist ID, which is FAR more precise than phylogeny and macroevolutionary biology claims, be 100% percent precise while ingoring the glaring imprecision of Macropevolutionary claims- We’ll see how far you take it.

[[Therefore, I will argue on your metaphysical terms in a private reply.]]

I don’t blame you for wanting to bow out the conversation- it’s tough defending the imprecise imaginary scenarios of macroevolution. If you want to change hte subject to biology, that’s fine too, but it just gets worse for macroevolution at hte biological stage.

The closer we examine microbiology, the more apparent it becomes that htere indeed is a system of metainfo, and that nature simply is incapable of constructing the incredibly complex systems and subsytstems in microbiolgy- what was once concidered ‘simple’ has now been discovered to be icnredibly complex, and interdependent on higher systems working relatively flawlessly in ways only a Designer could design, so yeah- whatever- no matter which way you choose to turn, there is evidnece of design that nature simply is incapable of constructing- doesn’t matter to me what you wish to discuss-

but most people here, most anticreationists prefer to just keep presenting generalized statements that they don’t have to put much thought into, because htta would involve actual research and work- they just prefer the petty accusations and imaginary claims most often spouted off by sites like talkorigins and darwin central. A lot less work.

I thought, with the several generalizations you were making, and hte avoidance of specific discussions about macroevolution you were avioding, that you wanted to just stick to generalizations, but if you want to get specific, then by all means present your case.

[[Therefore, I will argue on your metaphysical terms in a private reply]]

Lol- I’ve bene askign for specific physical realities, not metaphysical, don’t start falsely diverting the direction we’ve been heading. There was nothing metaphysical about any of hte 8 points I brought up- I didn’t appeal to any Creator, I simply pointed to hte facts that exposed the claims of macroevolutionists as imaginary intentionally deceitful claims that lack any evidence to support. But whatever, again, if you wish to duck out, that’s fine too- wouldn’t be the first time a macroevolutionist ran from such conversations. It’s a tough position tryign to assert that microevolution can lead to a wholly different biological process of macroevolution. Novel new organs don’t just pop out of nowhere when you muck with the info that is provided, you MUSt introduce non species psecific info from an outside source in order to achieve NEW non species specific info- this isn’t a metaphyisical statement, this is a basic biological fact.


198 posted on 03/14/2009 9:37:06 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

and no- I won’t spend time spell-checking when being bombarded by myriad claims- not goign to stop and take hte time to do so- so before you ask, the answer is no- occassionally, when I use my blog writing program, I’ll do so, but for hte most part, my posts will be quite horrid to read- but oh well- it excersizes the brain to try figuring out words- staves off alzheimers- so no thanks to me are necessary, glad to help.


199 posted on 03/14/2009 9:40:29 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

since we’re now apparently copying and pasting pm’s now (I added a comment htough that you’ll see with the -—— ——— lines surrounding it):

[[You’re not even going to look into DNA transcription and protein function in systems living TODAY, cells dividing TODAY. You won’t even use the word “gene” to reply to a comment on genetics. I can only assume you don’t believe in any mainstream science other than the 2nd law of thermodynamics.]]

As I said in my post- you’ve presented NOTHING specific- what is your quesiton or claim regarding genes? I can’t read your mind- I tried, but only saw a dark void- just kidding.

I ‘beleive’ in all kinds of modern science, what specifically are you driving at? Want to take this down to the microbiological level? Be happy to- I find microebiolgoy is even worse for claims of Macroevolution- Be more htan happy to explore that realm if you wish? I’ve doen so many many times here on FR- and quite amazingly, I’ve found that realm supports the concept of a Designer even greater than at hte generalized level of megaevolutionaruy claims.

There’s NO need to look at hte other thread and not argue from a macroevolutionist stance- I’ve even argued from that position myself in that whole thread- trying to figure out IF nature was capable of assembling metainformation fro mscratch- it’s a logn thread, but you’ll find it quite fascinating- and you’re impression of me is quite off I’m afraid- I’m able to look at BOTH sides of hte issue- to think from BOTH angles, and to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, which side presents the stronger case objectively.

—————IF you’re able to further my argument from a natural position in that thread, by all means, feel free to contribute- I think I was on the right path, but got stuck on a few issues, and couldn’t see a resolution- but if you can further my counterargument, I’d be happy to see if it holds water or not if I can——————

Take some time to just read that thread and it’s companion thread (GGG gave hte links in a couple of posts below the article), as well as the discussions that follow. Metainfo deals a serious death-blow to macroevolution I’m afriad- it’s the strongest arguemtn I’ve ever run across in regards to ID/IC- Behe’s examples of IC were fine, but the thread I pointed out takes IC to a whole new level that Behe only touched on. It is my belief that the arguments presented i nthat thread are FAR more important than anythign offered to date in ID/IC circles.

And, this isn’t just a crazy ‘creationist concept’ that isn’t havign any impact on secular science either- All manner of scientists are buisilly trying to come up with a ‘natural answer’ to hte ‘problem’ of metainformation. Demski, who beleives in ID, yet none-the-less mistakenly thinks a Creator of some sort simply began the process of macroevolution, has tried unsuccesfully to assert that higher informaiton can come directly from nature and be assimilated into the genetic makeups of species as they supposedly ‘macroevolved’- but his argument falls on it’s face i nthe mud, as discussed near the end of the thread- agian, it’s a fascinating read- hope you’ll take the time to read through it- if not, oh well. The arguments aren’t from a ‘metaphysical’ position, they directly address chemistry and biology, and determien whether or not nature is able to accomplish the biological complexities witnessed in nature.


200 posted on 03/14/2009 10:01:34 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson