Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

12728303233201

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,757 ✭✭✭smokingman


    J C wrote: »
    1 Timothy 2:5-6
    For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

    [/COLOR]

    You, yourself have denied the resurrection in black and white up there...
    You are no christian, you're definitely no scientist and hence, you're a pagan.

    Originally Posted by J C View Post
    Things that are dead remain dead ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    It does not constitute "bigotry" to suggest that creationists are, in the main, either liars or fools, since this happens to be the case.
    ... every Bigot that ever lived has justified his behaviour by appealing to untruths about the objects of his vilification.

    The fact that Creation Scientists are neither liars nor fools is attested to by the fact that the Evolutionists on this thread are unable to invalidate the scientific conclusions of Creationists and the Evolutionists are also unable to 'stand up' their fantastic claims about Evolution ... and instead they have resorted to 'school-yard' name-calling.
    The fact that Creation Scientists rank within their number some of the most eminent conventionally qualified scientists that have ever lived, means that they are certainly not fools ... and such statements are yet more 'school-yard name-calling' ... and bullying!!!:(
    robindch wrote: »
    Neither does is constitute "discrimination" to keep their hootin', tootin', crayon-level idiocy out of the schools, the science literature and anywhere else where reason, evidence and clarity should apply, since none of these places are suitable outlets for third-rate lies and tendentious, moronic bullshit. If creationists wish to be treated like real scientists, then they should start behaving like them and try making some contribution to the sum total of human knowledge, and not, as happens at the moment, hang around like drunks milling about the door of the scientific tent, unable to do anything save urinate uncontrollably all over the place.
    Many leading working conventional scientists are Creationists and your unfounded caricature is as invalid as every other sectarian caricature down through history.
    robindch wrote: »
    Finally, as we have to make clear every day or two on this forum to the vast majority of the religious who sincerely believe the opposite, atheists do not have a doctrine or a tribe to protect and only have questions for those who do.
    I did say Atheists and their fellow travellers. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want in relation to God and the 'origins' question ... it is when they try to impose their invalid beliefs on others that I draw the line ... and especially when they start suggesting that Saved Chrisitians and Orthodox Jews that are Creationists are Pagans/Druids.

    I don't care whether you believe in God or not ... but I object to job discrimination on the basis of whether somebody believes that God Created them ... or not.
    robindch wrote: »
    Which is why it would be helpful for you to try to answer some of the questions you've been asked rather than ineptly dodge them, since doing so would help you look like the scientist you claim to be.
    There is only one of me and hundreds of ye.
    I have answered as many questions as I have had the time to do so ... the fact that you don't like the answers doesn't mean that I haven't answered these questions.
    ... and I would suggest that you might provide some evidence for abiogenesis or Evolution ... other than things like flies increasing the proportion of green-winged varieties from 1% to 50% of the population ... and possibly speciating as a result!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    THe fact that Creation Scientists are neither liars nor fools
    So then JC why are you making them look like they are?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smokingman wrote: »
    You, yourself have denied the resurrection in black and white up there...
    You are no christian, you're definitely no scientist and hence, you're a pagan.

    Originally Posted by J C View Post
    Things that are dead remain dead ...
    I have never denied that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead. Things that are dead do indeed remain dead ... barring Direct Divine intervention ... which did occur at the resurrection of Jesus Christ ... and also with some of His miracles like Lazarus, the Centurions daughter and the widow's son who were also resurrected from death by Him.

    The point that I was making is that Atheists believe in a resurrection of life from death ... but they don't think that God did it.

    You may scoff at my faith in Divine Creation/Resurrection ... but at least the hypothesis is logically valid ... because God is theoretically capable of resurrecting/creating life.
    The Atheist hypothesis that life can arise spontaneously from dead things has no logic, even theoretically, to it!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,757 ✭✭✭smokingman


    J C wrote: »
    I have never denied that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead. Things that are dead do indeed remain dead ...

    You've just done it again, why do you mock the christian god like this?
    Do you not realise that you'll go to an eternal hell for doing this?

    Why is it that you believe the creationist agenda without believing in the main tenet of the faith that has been hijacked by your kind? You do know that you can't just pick what you like out of the Bible, twist it into lies and use it for that which it was not meant to be? That is the sign of someone wholly unchristian and someone who will not be saved when the end of days come.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    I have never denied that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead. Things that are dead do indeed remain dead ... barring Direct Divine intervention ... which did occur at the resurrection of Jesus Christ

    smokingman
    You've just done it again, why do you mock the christian god like this?
    Do you not realise that you'll go to an eternal hell for doing this?

    Why is it that you believe the creationist agenda without believing in the main tenet of the faith that has been hijacked by your kind? You do know that you can't just pick what you like out of the Bible, twist it into lies and use it for that which it was not meant to be? That is the sign of someone wholly unchristian and someone who will not be saved when the end of days come.
    The main tenet of the Christian Faith is the belief that Jesus Christ has the power to atone for all sin, that He did so at His death ... and that He resurrected bodily from that death.
    I believe in all of these things ... but I cannot prove them scientifically, nor have I ever claimed to do so.

    What I do claim is that it can be scientifically and mathematically proven that only an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life.

    Your credibility is reduced when you show yourself to be unable to read the plain English that I have written about my position.
    People could also reasonably conclude that you are suffering from similar dyslexia ... when it comes to your Evolutionist pronouncements!!!:pac:

    .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,757 ✭✭✭smokingman


    J C wrote: »
    The main tenet of the Christian Faith is the belief that Jesus Christ has the power to atone for all sin, that He did so at His death ... and that He resurrected bodily from that death.
    .

    ...a death you have stated a few times now that he could not rise again from.

    Originally Posted by J C View Post
    Things that are dead remain dead ...

    Why do you still call yourself christian when you quite plainly aren't?
    By doing so, you mock the faith and those who are true believers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smokingman wrote: »
    ...a death you have stated a few times now that he could not rise again from.

    Originally Posted by J C View Post
    Things that are dead remain dead ...

    Why do you still call yourself christian when you quite plainly aren't?By doing so, you mock the faith and those who are true believers.
    That is pecisely my point ... the only way that death can be resurrected into life is by Direct Divine intervention ... and this happened at Creation and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    ... and whatever credibility you had is now destroyed because you have repeatedly shown yourself to be unable to read the plain English that I have written about my position.
    ... and people can now reasonably conclude that you are suffering from similar dyslexia ... when it comes to your Evolutionist pronouncements!!!


    Matthew 4:3-11
    3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
    4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[a]"

    5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
    " 'He will command his angels concerning you,
    and they will lift you up in their hands,
    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

    7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[c]"

    8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

    10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]"

    11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Dexter Hollow Peacock


    J C wrote: »
    That is pecisely my point ... the only way that death can be resurrected into life is by Direct Divine intervention ... and this happened at Creation and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    ... and whatever credibility you had is now destroyed because you have repeatedly shown yourself to be unable to read the plain English that I have written about my position.
    ... and people can now reasonably conclude that you are suffering from similar dyslexia ... when it comes to your Evolutionist pronouncements!!!


    ]Matthew 4:3-11
    5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
    " 'He will command his angels concerning you,
    and they will lift you up in their hands,
    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

    Nobody is asking you to throw yourself off a temple. Eh, well...


    Anyway how the devil 'had him' do anything is a tad troubling.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    ... you speak the truth on your position on all of the above.

    ... however, the Evolutionist basis for all of your bigotry, sectarianism and absolutism is itself untrue.





  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    That is pecisely my point ... the only way that death can be resurrected into life is by Direct Divine intervention ... and this happened at Creation and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    I can't believe we wasted all this time arguing with a pagan sick_smiley.gif


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    What I do claim is that it can be scientifically and mathematically proven that only an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life.

    We have yet to see a single equation, a single scientific paper, a single
    shred of evidence on your part. What brand of paganism appeals to you
    in particular J C?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    The point that I was making is that Atheists believe in a resurrection of life from death ... but they don't think that God did it.

    You may scoff at my faith in Divine Creation/Resurrection ... but at least the hypothesis is logically valid ... because God is theoretically capable of resurrecting/creating life.
    The Atheist hypothesis that life can arise spontaneously from dead things has no logic, even theoretically, to it!!!

    Except for in the Miller Urey experiment and the Jack Szostak experiment
    on abiogenesis ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    It's great to see assorted Materialists singing about Creationism and making videos about Creationism.

    I just look forward to their next efforts ... when, hopefully, they won't misrepresent Creation Science.

    The fact that they are taking such an interest in Creationism is a good thing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    It's great to see assorted Materialists singing about Creationism and making videos about Creationism.

    I just look forward to their next efforts ... when, hopefully, they won't misrepresent Creation Science.

    The fact that they are taking such an interest in Creationism is a good thing.
    We have yet to see a single equation, a single scientific paper, a single
    shred of evidence on your part.
    What brand of paganism appeals to you
    in particular J C?
    .


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Except for in the Miller Urey experiment and the Jack Szostak experiment
    on abiogenesis ;)
    Both of which were Intelligently Designed and controlled ... and neither of which produced any new life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Both of which were Intelligently Designed and controlled by setting up a materialistic environment that mimicked the early earth by supplying just the most basic requirements in order to be as accurate as possible ... and neither of which produced any new life but formed the precursors to amino acids in a relatively short time, these precursors are the foundational building blocks of amino acids which were self replicating showing how both contemporary life and natural selection could originate via thermodynamics and availability of materialistic material causing competition and thereby giving any organism better adapted to it's environment a natural advantage leading it to be naturally selected to continue reproducing.

    FYP


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    We have yet to see a single equation, a single scientific paper, a single
    shred of evidence on your part.
    I have presented this mathematical proof ... and all I got were Evolutionists running around in circles and squealing like scalded cats ... but no evidence or substantive argument was presented against my figures or my conclusions.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68206676&postcount=1121

    Here is another one :-

    If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
    So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Nobody is asking you to throw yourself off a temple. Eh, well...


    Anyway how the devil 'had him' do anything is a tad troubling.
    The devil asking Jesus to prove that He is God ... when the devil already knew that Jesus was God ... is analogous to SM accusing me of not being a Christian when he knew that my writings indicate that I am.

    ... and the devil didn't 'have' Jesus do anything ... Jesus allowed Himself to be tempted by the devil to show just how deluded the devil is.
    ... and the devil didn't disappoint ... He actually thought that God would bow down and worship him!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Both of which were Intelligently Designed and controlled by setting up a materialistic environment that mimicked the early earth by supplying just the most basic requirements in order to be as accurate as possible ... and neither of which produced any new life but formed the precursors to amino acids in a relatively short time, these precursors are the foundational building blocks of amino acids which were self replicating showing how both contemporary life and natural selection could originate via thermodynamics and availability of materialistic material causing competition and thereby giving any organism better adapted to it's environment a natural advantage leading it to be naturally selected to continue reproducing.FYP
    So both of them were Intelligently Designed and controlled ... and neither of them came within 'an asses roar' of producing any new life.

    Glad we have clarified that then!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    I have presented this mathematical proof ... and all I got was Evolutionists running around in circles and shouting like scalded cats ... but no evidence or substantive argument was presented against my figures or my conclusions.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68206676&postcount=1121

    Here is another one :-

    If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
    So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligenlty directed processes.

    :D:D:D

    THAT'S YOUR PROOF!!! :pac::D

    What does that "proof" in the post you linked to even prove, that you are
    using incorrect figures to make a point & are totally happy with that?
    That you've already been told your figures were wrong but you're
    using it again as proof of whatever point you're trying to make?

    1) You got the number of galaxies in the universe wrong.

    2)
    The weight of the universe in tons and grams
    (I assume you mean mass because we all know that when we do science we don't use colloquial
    terms, weight is defined as mass times acceleration due to gravity, but you're a scientist - you
    knew that)
    is incorrect because you got that figure from a 10 year old book that
    based it's calculation off of an incorrect number of galaxies and stars.

    Now, even if you had the correct figures all you did was do some
    calculation with no point other to show that a snail could carry an electron
    across the universe (even though electrons have no definite shape or position).



    Why do you continue to talk about permutations as if it's a case
    against evolution? What has this got to do with anything and
    how the hell is it supposed to be an iron clad proof against evolution?
    How does your theory of permutations explain evolution is false when
    we see evolution in labratories with fruit flies?

    Oh, and how do permutations even come into "the equation" when
    there has been repeatable proof in the labratory that with only the
    bare minimum of materialistic ingredients amino acid precursors
    and self replicating entities were reproduced??????????


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    JC, evolution is not chance.

    Wake up.

    Why won't you wake up????


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    J C wrote: »
    Here is another one :-

    If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
    So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligenlty directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!

    Seriously, I've responded to this 3 times and you seem to just ignore it. Proteins fold by nucleation condensation and not by whatever method you or others who are not biochemists have invented in your head. As a qualified biochemist, I really have to just flat out tell you that you are WRONG.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    :D:D:D

    THAT'S YOUR PROOF!!! :pac::D

    What does that "proof" in the post you linked to even prove, that you are
    using incorrect figures to make a point & are totally happy with that?
    That you've already been told your figures were wrong but you're
    using it again as proof of whatever point you're trying to make?

    1) You got the number of galaxies in the universe wrong.

    2)
    The weight of the universe in tons and grams
    (I assume you mean mass because we all know that when we do science we don't use colloquial
    terms, weight is defined as mass times acceleration due to gravity, but you're a scientist - you
    knew that)
    is incorrect because you got that figure from a 10 year old book that
    based it's calculation off of an incorrect number of galaxies and stars.

    Now, even if you had the correct figures all you did was do some
    calculation with no point other to show that a snail could carry an electron
    across the universe (even though electrons have no definite shape or position).



    Why do you continue to talk about permutations as if it's a case
    against evolution? What has this got to do with anything and
    how the hell is it supposed to be an iron clad proof against evolution?
    How does your theory of permutations explain evolution is false when
    we see evolution in labratories with fruit flies?

    Oh, and how do permutations even come into "the equation" when
    there has been repeatable proof in the labratory that with only the
    bare minimum of materialistic ingredients amino acid precursors
    and self replicating entities were reproduced??????????
    These proofs are very important ... because they set the upper limits on the combinatorial space that can be 'searched' by non-directed systems ... and it is so small that we can definitively and scientifically state that non-intelligently directed systems cannot produce life.

    Calm down ... all of your objections have already been dealt with on my previous proof ... and I have just presented another proof where none of your objections are an issue!!!:cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Improbable wrote: »
    Seriously, I've responded to this 3 times and you seem to just ignore it. Proteins fold by nucleation condensation and not by whatever method you or others who are not biochemists have invented in your head. As a qualified biochemist, I really have to just flat out tell you that you are WRONG.
    ... and please tell me what happens to the folding and functionality of a protein when an 'incorrect' amino acid is present along a critical amino acid sequence ... or are you saying that 'any random sequence' will do to produce a specific functionality?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    J C wrote: »
    ... and please tell me what happens to the folding and functionality of a protein when an 'incorrect' amino acid is present along a critical amino acid sequence ... or are you saying that 'any random sequence' will do to produce a specific functionality?

    It can completely destroy the protein. It can make absolutely no change whatsoever. It can create a better functioning protein. So in other words, anything can happen. What was your point? And what does it have to do with your argument that "there isn't enough time to search the permutations"? You're avoiding the fact that you're just wrong on that proof and don't want to admit it. Simply admit the fact that you were wrong about it, try reading the paper that I linked to you by Alan Fersht quite a few pages ago.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    These proofs are very important ... because they set the upper limits on the combinatorial space that can be 'searched' by non-directed systems ... and it is so small that we can definitively and scientifically state that non-intelligently directed systems cannot produce life.

    Calm down ... all of your objections have already been dealt with on my previous proof ... and I have just presented another proof where none of your objections are an issue!!!:cool:

    Haha, you are absolutely deluded! This is the most bat∫hit crazy excuse
    I've ever read. Do you understand your answer merely said "I did an
    irrelevant calculation about combinatorics without showing any of the
    work I did other than to label the figures involved in my "
    calculation"
    and therefore that proves evolution is wrong
    ". This actually satisfies you!
    What has your calculation got to do with anything we've been talking
    about? Your "proof" did nothing, it said nothing and means nothing.
    I haven't said anything relevant to your new "proof" except to say it has
    nothing to do with our conversation so it's not a proof. You've said
    nothing & haven't responded properly to what I wrote. You're happy with
    fudging figures and not admitting it as well, this constitutes proof for you!
    And you wonder why creation science is a contradiction in terms and
    why big marxist elitist evolutionismists like me block you noble fellow's
    from tenure and job opportunities :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    House wrote: »
    JC, evolution is not chance.

    Wake up.

    Why won't you wake up????
    I agree that it cannot happen by chance ... and I have mathematically proven that this is the case ...
    ... and yet the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

    Waiting patiently for the dust and smoke to be produced by the Evolutionists to hide their scientific nakedness!!!:eek:

    This is your chance to get to the heart of this matter ... so if ye are serious about debating this issue ... let's have calm reasoned debate ... and no running around in circles shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ... or its equivalent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Improbable wrote: »
    It can completely destroy the protein. It can make absolutely no change whatsoever. It can create a better functioning protein. So in other words, anything can happen. What was your point? And what does it have to do with your argument that "there isn't enough time to search the permutations"? You're avoiding the fact that you're just wrong on that proof and don't want to admit it. Simply admit the fact that you were wrong about it, try reading the paper that I linked to you by Alan Fersht quite a few pages ago.
    If it is along a critical sequence, it will completely destroy the functionality of the protein. It's the same with any other information-rich system ... and the only way of overcoming the vastness of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there for all information-rich systems is the appliance of intelligence.
    Trying to 'search' it using random processes like Mutation will be defeated by the sheer scale of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    I agree that it cannot happen by chance ... and I have mathematically proven that this is the case ...
    ... and yet the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

    This is your chance to get to the heart of this matter ... so if ye are serious about debating this issue ... let's have calm reasoned debate ... and no running around in circles shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ... or its equivalent.

    "Only mechanism" J C, I hate to say it but you're either completely ignorant
    of evolution, despite once being an evolutionist, or lying about what you know.
    After a debate this long and the amount of dishonesty idk tbh...
    Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from
    ancient ancestors. Evolution is responsible for both the remarkable
    similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life—
    but exactly how does it work?

    Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective
    forces can act in order for evolution to occur. This section examines the
    mechanisms of evolution focusing on:

    • Descent and the genetic differences that are heritable and passed on to the next generation;
    • The random nature of genetic drift and the effects of a reduction in genetic variation;
    • How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection; and
    • How different species can affect each other’s evolution through coevolution.
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIMechanisms.shtml
    Remember this post! Do you see here, there are 6 bullet points in this
    list. How important is chance among these factors? Where is the
    bullet point devoted to chance J C? Do you see it's only part of some of
    them?

    edit: here is the cliff notes version, it'll probably make more sense to you seeing as
    we're still at a high school level of understanding...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    J C wrote: »
    If it is along a critical sequence, it will completely destroy the functionality of the protein. It's the same with any other information-rich system ... and the only way of overcoming the vastness of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there for all information-rich systems is the appliance of intelligence.
    Trying to 'search' it using random processes like Mutation will be defeated by the sheer scale of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there.

    No dude, it won't necessarily destroy the functionality. You're absolutely wrong... I don't know why you would think that there would only be a single amino acid which could fulfil a critical role when another amino acid might do it better... That second bit still has nothing to do with your argument... You're just throwing out nonsense I'm afraid. Seriously, go read the paper, it highlights EXACTLY why and how it's not a random process.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    :D:D:D

    THAT'S YOUR PROOF!!! :pac::D
    Oh, and how do permutations even come into "the equation" when
    there has been repeatable proof in the labratory that with only the
    bare minimum of materialistic ingredients amino acid precursors
    and self replicating entities were reproduced
    ??????????
    [/B]
    This is equivalent to saying that if you mix iron filings in water that ferric oxide results ... and this can then be somehow taken to show that a videotape of John May in action was 'spontaneously produced'.

    There is an inordinate information-rich gap between raw ferric oxide ... and the specified functional information that is recorded on a ferric oxide tape within a video casette recording ... of the vastly more information-rich John May!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Improbable wrote: »
    No dude, it won't necessarily destroy the functionality. You're absolutely wrong... I don't know why you would think that there would only be a single amino acid which could fulfil a critical role when another amino acid might do it better... That second bit still has nothing to do with your argument... You're just throwing out nonsense I'm afraid. Seriously, go read the paper, it highlights EXACTLY why and how it's not a random process.
    If it is a critical sequence, the entire shape of the protein, and therefore its current functionality will be destroyed ... and that's why mutagenesis isn't a good idea.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    J C wrote: »
    If it is a critical sequence, the entire shape of the protein, and therefore its current functionality will be destroyed ... and that's why mutagenesis isn't a good idea.

    One more time. No. You're wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    This is equivalent to saying that if you mix iron filings in water that ferric oxide results ... and this can then be somehow taken to show that a videotape of John May in action was 'spontaneously produced'.

    There is an inordinate information-rich gap between raw ferric oxide ... and the specified functional information that is recorded on a ferric oxide tape within a video casette ... of the even more information-rich John May!!!

    Are human beings made of iron and ferric oxide J C? Are human beings
    made by mixing together two substances J C? How long are humans
    in utero again? What is the process by which they are born? What needs
    to take place? :rolleyes:

    The stupid in what you just said... honestly you're showing yourself to be
    such a buffoon with these kinds of remarks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Did you lie when you said evolution involves chance as the only mechanism
    or was it just that you haven't been educated properly?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    "mechanisms of evolution focusing on:


    Descent and the genetic differences that are heritable and passed on to the next generation;
    Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection as mechanisms of change;
    The importance of genetic variation;
    The random nature of genetic drift and the effects of a reduction in genetic variation;
    How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection; and
    How different species can affect each other’s evolution through coevolution. ...
    All of the above mechanisms are involved in micro-evolution within Kinds and using the initial genetic CFSI diversity infused at Creation.

    They are simply sorting and selecting existing CFSI.

    None of these mechanisms are capable of accounting for the supposed increase in brand new genetic CFSI that would necessarily be involved in 'evolving' something from Ponsdkind to Mankind.

    I accept that micro-evolution (using pre-existing CFSI) occurs, indeed it appears to have been Intelligently Designed into organisms at Creation.
    I don't accept that either Macro-evolution or abiogenesis occurred.
    Evolutionists freely admit that they don't have a clue about how Abiogenesis occurred ... and life started

    ... I would call on them to be just as frank about the macro-evolution of new CFSI ... and indeed some have been!!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    J C wrote: »
    All of the above mechanisms are involved in micro-evolution within Kinds and using the initial genetic CFSI diversity infused at Creation.

    Could you define "kind" in terms of genetics and anatomy please? Also, if you could provide links to evidence that this is not just a baseless assertion to support your religious beliefs I would be very grateful.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Are human beings made of iron and ferric oxide J C? Are human beings
    made by mixing together two substances J C? How long are humans
    in utero again? What is the process by which they are born? What needs
    to take place? :rolleyes:

    The stupid in what you just said... honestly you're showing yourself to be
    such a buffoon with these kinds of remarks.
    Humans are infinitely more complex than a video tape ... and it is therefore much more ridiculous to believe that Humans weren't intelligently designed ... whilst accepting that video tapes are!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    I accept that micro-evolution (using pre-existing CFSI) occurs, indeed it appears to have been Intelligently Designed into organisms at Creation.
    I don't accept that either Macro-evolution or abiogenesis occurred.
    Evolutionists freely admit that they don't have a clue about how Abiogenesis occurred ... and life started

    ... I would call on them to be just as frank about the macro-evolution of new CFSI ... and indeed some have been!!


    This is hilarious :D You are like a textbook casestudy!
    Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought
    of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[6] Thus, the distinction
    between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only
    difference between them is of time and scale.
    ...

    The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same
    processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims
    misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not
    accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed
    evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution"
    takes place.
    [5][12] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary
    change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins
    of Earth's biodiversity.

    Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[13] While
    details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific
    community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common
    descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data.
    Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common
    descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the
    "fact of evolution".[14][15]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

    :D

    Macroevolution is microevolution! :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    If it is a critical sequence, the entire shape of the protein, and therefore its current functionality will be destroyed ... and that's why mutagenesis isn't a good idea.

    Improbable
    One more time. No. You're wrong.
    So are you saying that mutagenesis is a good idea ?:eek:

    ... you first honey!!!

    ... BTW I like your Username .. I think that 'Improbable' is a good name for an Evolutionist ... and 'Impossible' would be an even better one!!:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    J C wrote: »
    So are yo saying that mutagenesis is a good idea ?:eek:

    ... you first honey!!!

    ... BTW I like your Username .. I think that 'Improbable' is a good name for an Evolutionist ... and 'Impossible' would be an even better one!!:)

    Mutagenesis is neither good nor bad, its impartial and doesn't have feelings... The bit that I was referring to was: "If it is a critical sequence, the entire shape of the protein, and therefore its current functionality will be destroyed". That is just wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    So are yo saying that mutagenesis is a good idea ?:eek:

    ... you first honey!!!

    ... BTW I like your Username .. I think that 'Improbable' is a good name for an Evolutionist ... and 'Impossible' would be an even better one!!:)

    It would describe our task in this conversation accurately...


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Did you lie when you said evolution involves chance as the only mechanism
    or was it just that you haven't been educated properly?
    Have a look here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68317939&postcount=1490


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    J C wrote: »
    I agree that it cannot happen by chance ... and I have mathematically proven that this is the case ...
    ... and yet the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

    So you were lying then?

    Have a look here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68318118&postcount=1493

    You're such a fool at this stage it's unbelievable...


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zillah wrote: »
    Could you define "kind" in terms of genetics and anatomy please? Also, if you could provide links to evidence that this is not just a baseless assertion to support your religious beliefs I would be very grateful.
    The definitive test for a Created Kind is the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within a Kind.

    Many members of Baramin are also allocated to various Kinds provisionally on the basis of phenotype, even though they don't cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within the particular Kind.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Wtf is Barmin? The only thing I can find is a Russian surname Barmin and
    dog collars by Barmin, is this creationist "nomenclature" :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    So you were lying then?

    Have a look here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68318118&postcount=1493

    You're such a fool at this stage it's unbelievable...
    wrote:
    Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought
    of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[6] Thus, the distinction
    between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only
    difference between them is of time and scale.
    ... this is a load of baloney ... it is equivalent to saying that adjusting the seats or steering wheel in a car, using the pre-existing 'built-in' mechanisms for doing so is the same as designing and manufacturing the car (or indeed the adjustment mechanisms) in the first place.

    Please note that some of these mechanisms can 'adjust' spontaneously ... but the design and manufacture of them could never be achieved spontaneously.
    Similarly, the minor fluctuations of micro-evolution are a fundamentally different phenomenon to their intial design, in the first place ... and that is why Bacteria always remain bacteria ... and they have done so for over 600 million 'Evolutionist Years'!!

    Similarly, Starfish remain Starfish ... and have done so for 500 million 'Evolutionist Years'!!
    ...etc. ... etc. ...

    ... and you can only adjust your car seat within pre-determined limits!!

    .


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    J C wrote: »
    The definitive test for a Created Kind is the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within a Kind.

    Many members of Barmin are also allocated to various Kinds provisionally on the basis of phenotype, even though they don't cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within the particular Kind.

    Er, "barmin" aside, you're saying that your methods are completely incapable of understanding or investigating extinct species, who, by definition, cannot breed with anything?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement