06 Jun 12
Originally posted by finneganWhat is your educational background that makes you think you are more knowledgeable than the rest of us.?
two choices.
1. Keep the argument direct and do not over elaborate your answers. That leaves RJHinds and Jaywill cheerfully batting your posts back over and over again.
2. Provide a more full and complete explanation of their blindingly obvious error. They will
a) tell you that is atheist propoganda
b) tell you you are bigoted
c) tell you lots of st ...[text shortened]... it on record that they are wrong in this thread same as the last one and the one before that.
Originally posted by finneganCommon genes in living things is good evidence of a common designer and guess who that is? You all claim an hypothesis must be testable, not us. So we just want you to prove your assertions by your own rules. The Holy Bible says the common ancestors of mankind are Adam and Eve. So what is so different?
Where does this say that a fruit fly could be modified to become a mouse? Nowhere. What it does say is that both share common genes, and indeed that is good evidence for common ancestry. We know many Americans are descended from Europeans, even though they are clearly becoming a very different species to judge by this forum, but nobody asks us to build an A reads. Others have shown it more systematically. ID is a hoax and you are propogating a hoax.
We never said Fruit Flies are ancestors of mice. Darwin claimed all life stemed from a common ancestor, not a common designer. So does the fruit fly have a common ancestor or a common designer and how is your proposal testable as you guys claim it must be before you will accept it?
You guys still have yet to answer where did the information stored in the DNA molecule come from originally?
You guys are always falling back on the excuse you need more time. There has only been a little over 6000 years that we can account for. There is no recorded history going back millions are billions of years so all that is speculation and unprovable and not a testable hypothesis, yet you accept it as fact. You use one untestable assumption after another to state an untestable hypothesis as being fact after fact. It is all in the mind of the mad scientists.
06 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsare you referring to the douche reply where you claim there is no recorded history going back millions and billions of years? you expect to be taken seriously with that kind of comment?
Now I have made my reply above. So how is it busted, Buddy boy???
back to the drawing board with you, until you can come up with a proper reply that doesn't involve complete douchebag fallacy.
06 Jun 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThat's all it deserves, numbnuts.
are you referring to the douche reply where you claim there is no recorded history going back millions and billions of years? you expect to be taken seriously with that kind of comment?
back to the drawing board with you, until you can come up with a proper reply that doesn't involve complete douchebag fallacy.
Originally posted by RJHindsWell done for trying.
Common genes in living things is good evidence of a common designer and guess who that is? You all claim an hypothesis must be testable, not us. So we just want you to prove your assertions by your own rules. The Holy Bible says the common ancestors of mankind are Adam and Eve. So what is so different?
We never said Fruit Flies are ancestors of mice. ...[text shortened]... an untestable hypothesis as being fact after fact. It is all in the mind of the mad scientists.
If we are to do research of the kind you suggest, clearly that must be with very small organisms that reproduce very quickly. Asking us to produce a mouse or even a fruit fly is a very tall order but we can work with something that is far smaller yet still a living, reproducing natural creature.
Well a radio programme just now ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jhdhk ) gave an account of research into the flue virus, H5N1, or bird flue, which lacked the ability to lodge in the human throat and so did not spread through coughs and sneezes, vastly limiting its ability to spread in the early stages of infection. The epidemic was halted by isolating infected victims as quickly as possible. The problem is that, with this virus strain still around in poultry there is a fear that it may mutate to achieve that facility and become far more dangerous. Scientist therefore worked in a laboratory to produce the relevant mutations, in order to examine how that might work. This entailed producing a wide range of random variations, which arose naturally (something that seems to be disputed yet it is a fact, as in this case) and examining each to see if that would have the expected effect. They had a general idea what they were looking for which guided the search. Testing suspect strains in ferrets, they found that the expected mutation in itself was not sufficient, but within the infected ferrets, further mutation occured naturally which did produce the target strain - one that is highly infectious to ferrets (and so to humans it seems) and which transmits readily through coughs and sneezes. Scientists now have a better understanding of which parts of the DNA in the virus are important for their purposes. Armed with the findings, scientists are now better placed to establish if their vaccines will work on the new strain and the good news is that it will work despite the mutations.
Two teams of virologists found themselves at the heart of bioterrorism maelstrom late last year when their studies on mutant bird flu were suppressed by US authorities. While security experts feared the reports were recipes for bioweapons of mass destruction, the researchers argued they held important lessons for the threat of natural flu pandemics developing in the wild.
Now the authorities have backed down and the reports have been released, Kevin Fong hears how tiny variations in the genes of bird flu can completely change the behaviour of the pathogens. And whether deliberate genetic manipulation in the lab can replicate the natural genetic variations occurring in farms around the world.
In 2009, the new strain of H1N1 flu emerged from a few villages in Mexico to infect the world in weeks. What experts fear is that a simple genetic change to H5N1 bird flu could allow it to spread as fast, but with far deadlier consequences. They argue that by identifying dangerous variants in the lab first, we'd be better prepared with vaccines ahead of the danger.
In short, a new species is born in the laboratory. It is a new virus that has different characteristics and will spread differently and infect different victims to its ancestors. This sort of material is being reported day after day. If you ignore it that is your loss. Perhaps building a dinosaur, a mouse or even a fruit fly will take rather longer - that belongs in the world of popular science fiction and in the fevered imagination of Creationists, but nowhere else.
An excellent scientific test for common ancestry is of course to demonstrate that using the genetic information available to us. It also works to demonstrate which Americans have European ancestry. Other tests include the evidence from anatomy. There is no longer any need to rely on only one type of test or evidence. Evidence from very different branches of science have each provided separate support for each other.
There is plenty of recorded history going back millions of years. It is called geology. In addition it is perfectly possible to analyse the chacteristics of species that lived in the very distant past using a range of techniques. It is also possible to reconstruct their environments in some detail.
Hypotheses about life in the past are perfectly testable and often tested. They rest on the widely accepted assumption that the laws of nature have not altered. Anyone who seriously wants to dispute this is welcome to explain the alteration and say what the laws of nature might have been in the past. They must confront the fact that there is no need to imagine different laws of nature in order to explain the evidence so must come up with a good reason for their disagreement with the consensus.
Notice how you are finding it necessary to complain about not only evolutionary biology, but also microbiology, genetics, geology, astronomy and .... You are taking on a huge array of different types of science because you want to hang onto your pet theory - not one that most Christians share with you. Are all these people really and truly stupid and blind? When will you consider that you are in such a tiny minority because you are hopelessly wrong?
Hell! Even Jaywill doesn't agree with you! You are out on a thin branch over a canyon of ignorance and you are sawing off the branch at the wrong side. You are about to drop like a stone.
06 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWell I have no problem with auto didacts. I am to a large extent one myself and indeed, the only point of an education is not to absorb a list of facts, but to learn how to learn. Because the subject (experimental psychology) in which I got my degree has changed enormously since I graduated. I also have an MBA from a leading business school and a professional qualification, with diverse lesser stuff.
What is your educational background that makes you think you are more knowledgeable than the rest of us.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism
The problem I have with you, for example, but also Jaywill, is your apparent inability to engage with well established norms of reasoning and debate. The arguments go through you without leaving a mark. Maybe you did get educated, but you have stopped learning a long time ago. That is the problem. You have closed eyes and plugged ears but forgot to stitch up your mouths.
06 Jun 12
Originally posted by finneganI have said many times I have no problems with adaptations. Also I would be happy if we replaced the theory of evolution with the theory of genetic change.
Well done for trying.
If we are to do research of the kind you suggest, clearly that must be with very small organisms that reproduce very quickly. Asking us to produce a mouse or even a fruit fly is a very tall order but we can work with something that is far smaller yet still a living, reproducing natural creature.
Well a radio programme just now ...[text shortened]... rance and you are sawing off the branch at the wrong side. You are about to drop like a stone.
But I repeat there is no such thing as biological evolution and there never will be.
06 Jun 12
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganI am an old man with a lot of experience in life and I have not stopped learning, but I refuse to learn lies this late in my life, because I don't have much time to unlearn them. You don't present any arguments that makes sense in refuting my beliefs. You only rehash the same old crap the evolutionists put out with their flawed logic. They refuse to consider that there is something other than the natural. With your background in psychology, you should know that, but you appear to be indoctinated by the naturalistic education system of today.
Well I have no problem with auto didacts. I am to a large extent one myself and indeed, the only point of an education is not to absorb a list of facts, but to learn how to learn. Because the subject (experimental psychology) in which I got my degree has changed enormously since I graduated. I also have an MBA from a leading business school and a professi ...[text shortened]... That is the problem. You have closed eyes and plugged ears but forgot to stitch up your mouths.
P.S. I have presented many videos that are on youtube that no one here is open to watch. So I do not know what is wrong with them, if anything. If you are willing to take one at a time and tell me I would appreciate it. Here is the first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=O2eIF9h0tus
07 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou have not yet responded to my commments on a 49 minute video you offered in an earlier thread (abandoned for new threads of course as you tend to do when struggling). I am hardly going to make a habit of spending time on your stuff since it is so unrewarding. Maybe I'll remind you by copying the comment into this thread?
I am an old man with a lot of experience in life and I have not stopped learning, but I refuse to learn lies this late in my life, because I don't have much time to unlearn them. You don't present any arguments that makes sense in refuting my beliefs. You only rehash the same old crap the evolutionists put out with their flawed logic. They refuse to consi ...[text shortened]... e it. Here is the first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=O2eIF9h0tus
We do consider alternatives to natural explanations. We consider them seriously, and reject them on good grounds. The argument for Intelligent Design, for example, has been around since Paley 1802 and rejected comprehensively in Darwin's Origin. When you are incapable of reading or hearing the arguments then you are not entitld to deny their existence.
07 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy bother when you ignore the responses? It is a lie that nobody watches or responds to your videos.
I am an old man ...
P.S. I have presented many videos that are on youtube that no one here is open to watch. So I do not know what is wrong with them, if anything. If you are willing to take one at a time and tell me I would appreciate it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=O2eIF9h0tus
Originally posted by RJHinds
I think you will find the following video informative and worth your while in viewing.
&feature=related
Why do I rise to the bait you may ask? Maybe just to show I am prepared to listen and not be bigoted. Maybe for the entertainment value when I spot the lies and the rhetorical tricks employed.
Well this 49 minute video clip sets out in a deeply sarcastic manner a curious proposition.
Science (it says) attributes life to a combination of matter + energy + random chance.
Creation Science atrtributes life to a combination of matter + energy + information.
It then waxes lyrical on the sheer complexity of DNA and the vast amount of information contained there and the incredibly organised way in which that information is transmited and copied from DNA to RNA to proteins and so forth. Such a display of clear, intelligble and unarguable erudition lends credibility to this speaker's scientific credentials. We even lern early on that he has spent 150,000 dollars getting an education in medicine, the foundation of whcih, as he points out, is evolutionary biology. So whatever else is wrong with evolutionary biology, he concedes that it is the foundation of medical science and so must have some value I would suggest.
It proposes (at about 23 minutes e.g.) that according to Science, this information got into the DNA code by random chance. That is such a crazy, improbable eventuality that it must be dismissed.
It would be a decent argument if it was true but it is FALSE. It is true enough that many scientists say that evolution arises by chance and not by design. But the manner in which this happens is not random and chaotic.
What happens by random chance is that there are errors in transmitting the code during replication. That is not surprising in a complex process as described so well in the video. The majority of such errors result in a failure of the process - at some stage, the error makes the DNA replication a failure. However, some transmission errors do not damage the viability of the new DNA and are retained. What effect this might have on the subsequent new organism is highly questionable. For example, it may have zero effect, since much of the DNA sequence does not appear to do anything useful at all. Or it may produce a slight difference that is normally unimportant - an example might be that some peas are smooth and some are crinkled, depending on which version of the DNA message gets transmitted.
What also happens by chance ( not truly random however, it must be said, but chance all the same) is that the environment into which each organism is born varies over time. It may become more dry or more wet, a new predator may arrive on the scence, etc.
Now two things are not contentious. One is that individual differences arise in every species of life. eg some individuals are taller or shorter, or have longer fingers or shorter ones, and so forth for every feature of the creature's structure. The other is that the environment is subject to continual change.
In the theory of evolution by natural selection, all that is claimed is that as the environment changes, some individuals turn out to have a slight advantage over others on account of their individual differences, and as a result are more likely to reproduce successfully and produce new individuals sharing their DNA, as compared with less favoured individuals. That is all. It is a product of chance differences but it is not a random process. It is highly deterministic, in that it is shaped by the environment. Far from being random, any new creature that was cursed with a feature making it harder to compete and survive is going to die without reproducing. Most random changes in any organisms are going to cause trouble. Random change is dangerously risky. The change only survives if it enhances the prospects of reproducing or at best if it does not restrict those chances.
Evolutionary changes in DNA arise over immense timescales and by means of a long series of minor changes, never very significant at all at the level of one or even a few generations. It takes many many generations for any change to become significant and many more before a species diverges to establish a new and different species and many different species stand in the ancestry of most (though not all) modern species. Nobody can ratioanally claim that any modern species (or its DNA) has arisen out of the blue by random chance. Since this would be a nonsensical misrepresentation of the theory of evoution by natural selection, then the entire video is, I regret to say, a hoax.
It does not explain how any of its arguments can be derived from the Bible, unless there is a reference to the sin of Onin. To arrive at this version of Creation Science, one must start with the findings of modern evolutionary biology and work backwards. Whenever something interesting happens, insert the word "creation" for the scientific account.
This is also, of course, just one of the various versions subsumed under the heading Creationism. So the Creationists can have long and interesting debates together to determine who is being confused by Lucifer's little imps and who has a direct line to God.
Informative? Not about anything else, just about the kind of propoganda referred to in support of Creationism. Worth my while viewing? Only if it is worth taking the trouble to respond to its lies, since otherwise they go uncontested.
Thread: Chance or by Design ? Forum: Spirituality