# Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution



## Ringtone

The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.

The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.

_Hocus Pocus_

We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> biological history is actually a series of creative events


What is the evidence for such creation?  Is it natural or supernatural?


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> biological history is actually a series of creative events
> 
> 
> 
> What is the evidence for such creation?  Is it natural or supernatural?
Click to expand...


Natural.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> biological history is actually a series of creative events
> 
> 
> 
> What is the evidence for such creation?  Is it natural or supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural.
Click to expand...

And the mechanism?


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> biological history is actually a series of creative events
> 
> 
> 
> What is the evidence for such creation?  Is it natural or supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the mechanism?
Click to expand...


Mechanism for what?  Stop talking like Breezewood.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> *The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain ofg natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time. The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.*
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.


Of course Evolution is falsifiable in any number of ways.
If one fossil of millions found was found out of place. 
(ie man and dinosaur),
(bird before one celled creatures, etc x1000)
that would falsify it.
But didn't happen... of course.

Or, ie, 'his special creation,' could have No DNA at all. Could be wired uniquely, but of course isn't, just a progression of closer and closer creatures/species in physical and DNA make up.

An Explosion of New Sciences have come along in the last 160 years (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc, etc, etc). and None contradict it.
All relevant one help Confirm it.

And of course any evidence for any god would do it too.
If the stars all lined up overhead one night and spelled 'VISHNU' in Hindi, I would accept it with wonder. It would explain alot.
While you and tens of millions of other religionists of a different tribe would commit suicide.
Your whole lives, history, and holy books now trash.

/idiotic thread

(I skipped the 1 hr Boobtube/conspiracists special)
`
`


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> Mechanism for what?  Stop talking like Breezewood.



HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

That's right ... you have no mechanism ... each species was created magically ... something no one can see ... 

On the other hand ... 2 CH4 --> C2H6 + H2 is routinely observed in the lab ... not axiomic ...

Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.



DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.


It’s hilarious when the hyper-religious use a gathering of Disco’tute charlatans in an attempt to refute science.


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain ofg natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time. The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.*
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Evolution is falsifiable in any number of ways.
> If one fossil of millions found was found out of place.
> (ie man and dinosaur),
> (bird before one celled creatures, etc x1000)
> that would falsify it.
> But didn't happen... of course.
> 
> Or, ie, 'his special creation,' could have No DNA at all. Could be wired uniquely, but of course isn't, just a progression of closer and closer creatures/species in physical and DNA make up.
> 
> An Explosion of New Sciences have come along in the last 160 years (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc, etc, etc). and None contradict it.
> All relevant one help Confirm it.
> 
> And of course any evidence for any god would do it too.
> If the stars all lined up overhead one night and spelled 'VISHNU' in Hindi, I would accept it with wonder. It would explain alot.
> While you and tens of millions of other religionists of a different tribe would commit suicide.
> Your whole lives, history, and holy books now trash.
> 
> /idiotic thread
> 
> (I skipped the 1 hr Boobtube/conspiracists special)
> `
> `
Click to expand...


I said that the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism is not falsifiable, and that is the basis of your myth.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.




How so, precisely?


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> It’s hilarious when the hyper-religious use a gathering of Disco’tute charlatans in an attempt to refute science.



It's hilarious how evolutionists make slogan speak.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so, precisely?
Click to expand...



_An interesting additional line of evidence supporting evolution involves sequences of DNA known as "pseudogenes." Pseudogenes are remnants of genes that no longer function but continue to be carried along in DNA as excess baggage. Pseudogenes also change through time, as they are passed on from ancestors to descendants, and they offer an especially useful way of reconstructing evolutionary relationships.

With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar—for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be.

The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some cases, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea. From anatomical and paleontological evidence, the whales' closest living land relatives seemed to be the even-toed hoofed mammals (modem cattle, sheep, camels, goats, etc.).

Recent comparisons of some milk protein genes (beta-casein and kappa-casein) have confirmed this relationship and have suggested that the closest land-bound living relative of whales may be the hippopotamus. In this case, molecular biology has augmented the fossil record.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov) _


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...



Well, since you don't even grasp the realities of adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof, there's no reason to take you seriously at all.  Behold how the typical true believer doesn't really know dick about the pertinent biology, but, then, this is the same mathematically illiterate rube who thinks actual infinities have existentiality in nature.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s hilarious when the hyper-religious use a gathering of Disco’tute charlatans in an attempt to refute science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious how evolutionists make slogan speak.
Click to expand...


Nothing, as usual, from the Harun Yahya groupie.

I can’t help but notice your inability to refute a single argument against your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

This is where you want to deflect, as usual, while announcing how bankrupt your attempt at argument is. Time for more of your spam poetry.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you don't even grasp the realities of adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof, there's no reason to take you seriously at all.  Behold how the typical true believer doesn't really know dick about the pertinent biology, but, then, this is the same mathematically illiterate rube who thinks actual infinities have existentiality in nature.
Click to expand...


Here's the math behind evolution ... please read through this and tell us where you think it's wrong ... Haldane, JBS; _A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection_; Trinity College ...

This paper covers what we call the Modern Synthesis of Evolution, something you should read up on because the Modern Synthesis addresses some of the failings in Darwin's approach far far better that you do ...


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so, precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _An interesting additional line of evidence supporting evolution involves sequences of DNA known as "pseudogenes." Pseudogenes are remnants of genes that no longer function but continue to be carried along in DNA as excess baggage. Pseudogenes also change through time, as they are passed on from ancestors to descendants, and they offer an especially useful way of reconstructing evolutionary relationships.
> 
> With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar—for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be.
> 
> The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some cases, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea. From anatomical and paleontological evidence, the whales' closest living land relatives seemed to be the even-toed hoofed mammals (modem cattle, sheep, camels, goats, etc.).
> 
> Recent comparisons of some milk protein genes (beta-casein and kappa-casein) have confirmed this relationship and have suggested that the closest land-bound living relative of whales may be the hippopotamus. In this case, molecular biology has augmented the fossil record.
> 
> Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov) _
Click to expand...



First of all, your science is dated by nearly 20 years.  


The idea that pseudogenes are merely evolutionary relics has been so ingrained in the scientific community that few studies have actually attempted to find any kind of function for many of the thousands of mammalian pseudogenes.  In fact, the first functional role for a pseudogene was found through a study that was not even designed to study pseudogenes:​​*An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene*​​This study was looking at expression of a fruit fly gene that was being inserted into the genes of laboratory mice. The investigators produced several lines of mice by inserting the fruit fly gene randomly into the mouse DNA. However, just one line of the genetically-altered mice was found to have multi-organ failure in at least 80% of the individuals. Instead of discarding the aberrant line, the scientists probed to find out why the insertion was lethal. What they found is that the fruit fly gene had been inserted into the middle of a pseudogene sequence called Makorin1-p1. The scientists found that this pseudogene produced an mRNA product that regulated the expression of the functional Makorin1 gene. Not only was the pseudogene functional, but its destruction resulted in a lethal mutation in the mice. Scientists had found the first _required_ pseudogene.​​The abstract from a commentary in an issue of _Nature_ in which the study was published indicated:​


> 'Pseudogenes' are produced from functional genes during evolution, and are thought to be simply molecular fossils. The unexpected discovery of a biological function for one pseudogene challenges that popular belief ("*Complicity of gene and pseudogene*").​


Since this first study, many other studies have found that pseudogenes exhibit functional activity, including gene expression, gene regulation, and generation of genetic diversity ("*Pseudogenes: Are They 'Junk' or Functional DNA?*").  Recent work shows that up to 50% of pseudogenes in some genomes appear to be transcriptionally active ("*The Ambiguous Boundary between Genes and Pseudogenes: The Dead Rise Up, or Do They?*").​​It's been shown that transcripts of "pseudogenes" are involved in gene regulation through RNA interference pathways, and it appears that non-transcribed pseudogenes perform regulatory functions in nearby genes.  I agree with those who expect that it will eventually be shown that at least half of all "pseudogenes" are functional, with the remainder playing some role in chromosomal stability and structure. 

As for the rest, once again, you're failing to grasp the fact that  evolutionists are begging the question, presupposing naturalism is true!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so, precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _An interesting additional line of evidence supporting evolution involves sequences of DNA known as "pseudogenes." Pseudogenes are remnants of genes that no longer function but continue to be carried along in DNA as excess baggage. Pseudogenes also change through time, as they are passed on from ancestors to descendants, and they offer an especially useful way of reconstructing evolutionary relationships.
> 
> With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar—for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be.
> 
> The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some cases, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea. From anatomical and paleontological evidence, the whales' closest living land relatives seemed to be the even-toed hoofed mammals (modem cattle, sheep, camels, goats, etc.).
> 
> Recent comparisons of some milk protein genes (beta-casein and kappa-casein) have confirmed this relationship and have suggested that the closest land-bound living relative of whales may be the hippopotamus. In this case, molecular biology has augmented the fossil record.
> 
> Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov) _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, your science is dated by nearly 20 years.
> 
> 
> The idea that pseudogenes are merely evolutionary relics has been so ingrained in the scientific community that few studies have actually attempted to find any kind of function for many of the thousands of mammalian pseudogenes.  In fact, the first functional role for a pseudogene was found through a study that was not even designed to study pseudogenes:​​*An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene*​​This study was looking at expression of a fruit fly gene that was being inserted into the genes of laboratory mice. The investigators produced several lines of mice by inserting the fruit fly gene randomly into the mouse DNA. However, just one line of the genetically-altered mice was found to have multi-organ failure in at least 80% of the individuals. Instead of discarding the aberrant line, the scientists probed to find out why the insertion was lethal. What they found is that the fruit fly gene had been inserted into the middle of a pseudogene sequence called Makorin1-p1. The scientists found that this pseudogene produced an mRNA product that regulated the expression of the functional Makorin1 gene. Not only was the pseudogene functional, but its destruction resulted in a lethal mutation in the mice. Scientists had found the first _required_ pseudogene.​​The abstract from a commentary in an issue of _Nature_ in which the study was published indicated:​
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pseudogenes' are produced from functional genes during evolution, and are thought to be simply molecular fossils. The unexpected discovery of a biological function for one pseudogene challenges that popular belief ("*Complicity of gene and pseudogene*").​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since this first study, many other studies have found that pseudogenes exhibit functional activity, including gene expression, gene regulation, and generation of genetic diversity ("*Pseudogenes: Are They 'Junk' or Functional DNA?*").  Recent work shows that up to 50% of pseudogenes in some genomes appear to be transcriptionally active ("*The Ambiguous Boundary between Genes and Pseudogenes: The Dead Rise Up, or Do They?*").​​It's been shown that transcripts of "pseudogenes" are involved in gene regulation through RNA interference pathways, and it appears that non-transcribed pseudogenes perform regulatory functions in nearby genes.  I agree with those who expect that it will eventually be shown that at least half of all "pseudogenes" are functional, with the remainder playing some role in chromosomal stability and structure.
> 
> As for the rest, once again, you're failing to grasp the fact that  evolutionists are begging the question, presupposing naturalism is true!
Click to expand...


*First of all, your science is dated by nearly 20 years. *

Dated? You mean in the last 20 years DNA sequencing stopped working? 
Stopped showing relatedness? What do you mean exactly?

*As for the rest, once again, you're failing to grasp the fact that  evolutionists are begging the question, presupposing naturalism is true!*

God can't use evolution? Why not?


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you don't even grasp the realities of adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof, there's no reason to take you seriously at all.  Behold how the typical true believer doesn't really know dick about the pertinent biology, but, then, this is the same mathematically illiterate rube who thinks actual infinities have existentiality in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the math behind evolution ... please read through this and tell us where you think it's wrong ... Haldane, JBS; _A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection_; Trinity College ...
> 
> This paper covers what we call the Modern Synthesis of Evolution, something you should read up on because the Modern Synthesis addresses some of the failings in Darwin's approach far far better that you do ...
Click to expand...


LOL!  Naturalism is true because naturalism is true.   Once again, people:

We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. *This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.*​
Behold what has not occurred to any of you in your entire unexamined lives:  the empirical evidence would look much the same!


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *First of all, your science is dated by nearly 20 years. *
> 
> Dated? You mean in the last 20 years DNA sequencing stopped working?
> Stopped showing relatedness? What do you mean exactly?
> 
> *As for the rest, once again, you're failing to grasp the fact that  evolutionists are begging the question, presupposing naturalism is true!*
> 
> God can't use evolution? Why not?



I was talking about your dated science regarding so-called pseudogenes. 

Moving on. . . . 

In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution sans the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism?


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Nothing, as usual, from the Harun Yahya groupie.
> 
> I can’t help but notice your inability to refute a single argument against your claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> This is where you want to deflect, as usual, while announcing how bankrupt your attempt at argument is. Time for more of your spam poetry.



When the Soma oozes from our waxy ears
And mingles with the silvery tears
of those ancient Fellows loitering behind the clouds;​When it’s time to shoo the Riffraff,
When it’s time to chase my feet,
When the relentless siege of the daze of days
And the fog of sleepless nights has razed
And burned and trampled and buried my hapless brain:
Shall I walk or ride the bus?
Ride the bus or take a walk?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *First of all, your science is dated by nearly 20 years. *
> 
> Dated? You mean in the last 20 years DNA sequencing stopped working?
> Stopped showing relatedness? What do you mean exactly?
> 
> *As for the rest, once again, you're failing to grasp the fact that  evolutionists are begging the question, presupposing naturalism is true!*
> 
> God can't use evolution? Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about your dated science regarding so-called pseudogenes.
> 
> Moving on. . . .
> 
> In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution sans the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism?
Click to expand...


*In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution*

Prove? Who said prove?

DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *First of all, your science is dated by nearly 20 years. *
> 
> Dated? You mean in the last 20 years DNA sequencing stopped working?
> Stopped showing relatedness? What do you mean exactly?
> 
> *As for the rest, once again, you're failing to grasp the fact that  evolutionists are begging the question, presupposing naturalism is true!*
> 
> God can't use evolution? Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about your dated science regarding so-called pseudogenes.
> 
> Moving on. . . .
> 
> In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution sans the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution*
> 
> Prove? Who said prove?
> 
> DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.
Click to expand...



Oh, okay, fair enough.  I misread you.  I didn't mean to misrepresent your position.  My bad.

Perhaps you would explain in greater detail precisely how DNA sequencing supports a common ancestry.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> biological history is actually a series of creative events
> 
> 
> 
> What is the evidence for such creation?  Is it natural or supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the mechanism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mechanism for what?  Stop talking like Breezewood.
Click to expand...

I'm ignoring Breezewood so I have no idea how he talks but this seems like a simple question.  No gotchas.  You say that biological history is actually a series of creative events that are entirely natural.  What is the mechanism for these events?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *First of all, your science is dated by nearly 20 years. *
> 
> Dated? You mean in the last 20 years DNA sequencing stopped working?
> Stopped showing relatedness? What do you mean exactly?
> 
> *As for the rest, once again, you're failing to grasp the fact that  evolutionists are begging the question, presupposing naturalism is true!*
> 
> God can't use evolution? Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about your dated science regarding so-called pseudogenes.
> 
> Moving on. . . .
> 
> In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution sans the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution*
> 
> Prove? Who said prove?
> 
> DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, okay, fair enough.  I misread you.  I didn't mean to misrepresent your position.  My bad.
> 
> Perhaps you would explain in greater detail precisely how DNA sequencing supports a common ancestry.
Click to expand...


Same link......


_As the ability to sequence the nucleotides making up DNA has improved, it also has become possible to use genes to reconstruct the evolutionary history of organisms. Because of mutations, the sequence of nucleotides in a gene gradually changes over time. The more closely related two organisms are, the less different their DNA will be. Because there are tens of thousands of genes in humans and other organisms, DNA contains a tremendous amount of information about the evolutionary history of each organism.

Genes evolve at different rates because, although mutation is a random event, some proteins are much more tolerant of changes in their amino acid sequence than are other proteins. For this reason, the genes that encode these more tolerant, less constrained proteins evolve faster The average rate at which a particular kind of gene or protein evolves gives rise to the concept of a "molecular clock." Molecular clocks run rapidly for less constrained proteins and slowly for more constrained proteins, though they all time the same evolutionary events.

The figure on this page compares three molecular clocks: for cytochrome c proteins, which interact intimately with other macromolecules and are quite constrained in their amino acid sequences; for the less rigidly constrained hemoglobins, which interact mainly with oxygen and other small molecules; and for fibrinopeptides, which are protein fragments that are cut from larger proteins (fibrinogens) when blood clots. The clock for fibrinopeptides runs rapidly; 1 percent of the amino acids change in a little longer than 1 million years. At the other extreme, the molecular clock runs slowly for cytochrome c; a 1 percent change in amino acid sequence requires 20 million years. The hemoglobin clock is intermediate.

The concept of a molecular clock is useful for two purposes. It determines evolutionary relationships among organisms, and it indicates the time in the past when species started to diverge from one another. Once the clock for a particular gene or protein has been calibrated by reference to some event whose time is known, the actual chronological time when all other events occurred can be determined by examining the protein or gene tree._


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> I'm ignoring Breezewood so I have no idea how he talks but this seems like a simple question.  No gotchas.  You say that biological history is actually a series of creative events that are entirely natural.  What is the mechanism for these events?



Well, I can't say as I blame you.  His posts are so incoherent, I don't even know what the hell he's talking about most of the time.

To answer your question, let's review:

This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—*entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection*—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.​
Hence, the mechanisms of adaptive radiation naturally occur, albeit, within a cyclically limited range of speciation predetermined by God.  Additionally, in the past and over geological time, God has varyingly and directly altered the generally shared genetic motif of terrestrial creatures and brought new species into being.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Haldane, JBS; _A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection_; Trinity College ...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Naturalism is true because naturalism is true.   Once again, people:
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. *This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.*​Behold what has not occurred to any of you in your entire unexamined lives:  the empirical evidence would look much the same!
Click to expand...


What is your "mathematical challenge" in your OP if you won't address the mathematics behind evolution? ... here's a paper, please point out the flaw in the logic ...


----------



## Bush92

Ringtone said:


> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.


Only the Lord Thy God knows the answer.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> What is your "mathematical challenge" in your OP if you won't address the mathematics behind evolution? ... here's a paper, please point out the flaw in the logic ...



Sans the presupposition of naturalism and the hypothesis of evolution, what the mathematics actually track is the biological progression of the appearance of species in history. Once again, the mathematics *in no way, shape or form preclude the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.* 

What you do don't grasp is the latter.  In college I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on evolutionary biology, and my professors never had the slightest clue that I utterly rejected their metaphysical apriority and, thusly, the hypothesis of evolution.


----------



## abu afak

ReinyDays said:


> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...
> 
> That's right ... you have no mechanism ... each species was created magically ... something no one can see ...
> 
> On the other hand ... 2 CH4 --> C2H6 + H2 is routinely observed in the lab ... not axiomic ...
> 
> Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...


Ringtone is just the same as any Creationist Yokel, but has a better vocabulary.
He hates/cloaks admitting it is so. Saying 'god created it.'
So instead they attack evolution rather than the embarrassing positive alternative: the NO EVIDENCE God position.

He/they don't actually believe in scientific 'species,' they believe in "Kinds"/Look alikes, that were all put here roughly as is, and can never change over time from that basic 'look'.
There are tweeners that stump em tho... and that pesky DNA too.

`


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you don't even grasp the realities of adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof, there's no reason to take you seriously at all.  Behold how the typical true believer doesn't really know dick about the pertinent biology, but, then, this is the same mathematically illiterate rube who thinks actual infinities have existentiality in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the math behind evolution ... please read through this and tell us where you think it's wrong ... Haldane, JBS; _A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection_; Trinity College ...
> 
> This paper covers what we call the Modern Synthesis of Evolution, something you should read up on because the Modern Synthesis addresses some of the failings in Darwin's approach far far better that you do ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Naturalism is true because naturalism is true.   Once again, people:
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. *This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.*​
> Behold what has not occurred to any of you in your entire unexamined lives:  the empirical evidence would look much the same!
Click to expand...

Behold naturalism is true because we have no evidence for _super_naturalism. 

Not a single event in human history, ever, has been shown to have supernatural causes. 

Behold while the religious extremists make appeals to their partisan gods, nowhere do they provide any evidence that a) their gods existed or are extant, and b) that supernatural events at the hands of their gods have ever occurred.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, as usual, from the Harun Yahya groupie.
> 
> I can’t help but notice your inability to refute a single argument against your claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> This is where you want to deflect, as usual, while announcing how bankrupt your attempt at argument is. Time for more of your spam poetry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Soma oozes from our waxy ears
> And mingles with the silvery tears
> of those ancient Fellows loitering behind the clouds;​When it’s time to shoo the Riffraff,
> When it’s time to chase my feet,
> When the relentless siege of the daze of days
> And the fog of sleepless nights has razed
> And burned and trampled and buried my hapless brain:
> Shall I walk or ride the bus?
> Ride the bus or take a walk?
Click to expand...


You're hoping to impress the other Harun Yahya groupies with your poetry?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your "mathematical challenge" in your OP if you won't address the mathematics behind evolution? ... here's a paper, please point out the flaw in the logic ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sans the presupposition of naturalism and the hypothesis of evolution, what the mathematics actually track is the biological progression of the appearance of species in history. Once again, the mathematics *in no way, shape or form preclude the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.*
> 
> What you do don't grasp is the latter.  In college I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on evolutionary biology, and my professors never had the slightest clue that I utterly rejected their metaphysical apriority and, thusly, the hypothesis of evolution.
Click to expand...

Sans your understanding of the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, I thought I would lend an assist. Not having any study in the biological and physical sciences, your lack of a science vocabulary is a hinderance.

The theory of evolution has undergone rigorous review in the scientific community and remains the best, most coherent explanation of the observed development of life on Earth.  The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. Supporting the fact of evolution are the complimentary sciences of biology, paleontology, earth science, chemistry, etc. The theory of evolution explains the facts.  The theory of evolution is no less valid than theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based).  On the fundamental, most basic issues of the theory of evolution, such as the _demonstrated facts_ of common descent and natural selection, there is no controversy within the scientific community. With near exclusivity, the only controversy emerges from fundamentalist Christianity.


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> Ringtone is just the same as any Creationist Yokel, but has a better vocabulary.
> He hates/cloaks admitting it is so. Saying 'god created it.'
> So instead they attack evolution rather than the embarrassing positive alternative: the NO EVIDENCE God position.
> 
> He/they don't actually believe in scientific 'species,' they believe in "Kinds"/Look alikes, that were all put here roughly as is, and can never change over time from that basic 'look'.
> There are tweeners that stump em tho... and that pesky DNA too.



*abu afak* is just another new atheist blowhard with the vocabulary of a child who can't write coherent sentences.  He believes in magic, namely, that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or caused itself to exist before it existed.  He's not bright enough to formulate a coherent counterargument in the face of the logical, mathematical and scientific imperatives regarding the origin of the physical world, so he just spouts ad hominem and slogans.

He really doesn't know dick about the pertinent sciences of origins and incessantly "straw mans" the observations that stump his hapless brain and leave him drooling.  

For example, he actually believes that the DNA evidence necessarily supports evodelusion because he cannot grasp the fact that a branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry is scientifically indemonstrable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism, let alone grasp the fact that the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.

*abu afak's *mind is a slammed-shut door.

In fact, I suspect that Toddsterpatriot is the only person on this thread who grasps what I'm getting at.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> cyclically limited range of speciation predetermined by God.  Additionally, in the past and over geological time, God has varyingly and directly altered the generally shared genetic motif of terrestrial creatures and brought new species into being.


I can't tell if you believe in evolution or not.  You seem to mix natural and supernatural causes of speciation, where is the line?


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Sans your understanding of the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, I thought I would lend an assist. Not having any study in the biological and physical sciences, your lack of a science vocabulary is a hinderance.
> 
> The theory of evolution has undergone rigorous review in the scientific community and remains the best, most coherent explanation of the observed development of life on Earth.  The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. Supporting the fact of evolution are the complimentary sciences of biology, paleontology, earth science, chemistry, etc. The theory of evolution explains the facts.  The theory of evolution is no less valid than theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based).  On the fundamental, most basic issues of the theory of evolution, such as the _demonstrated facts_ of common descent and natural selection, there is no controversy within the scientific community. With near exclusivity, the only controversy emerges from fundamentalist Christianity.



The evodelusionist's interpretation of the available evidence is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism.

Since you refuse to address the substance of speciation via common design, answer my question:

Shall I walk or ride the bus?​Ride the bus or take a walk?​


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone is just the same as any Creationist Yokel, but has a better vocabulary.
> He hates/cloaks admitting it is so. Saying 'god created it.'
> So instead they attack evolution rather than the embarrassing positive alternative: the NO EVIDENCE God position.
> 
> He/they don't actually believe in scientific 'species,' they believe in "Kinds"/Look alikes, that were all put here roughly as is, and can never change over time from that basic 'look'.
> There are tweeners that stump em tho... and that pesky DNA too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *abu afak* is just another new atheist blowhard with the vocabulary of a child who can't write coherent sentences.  He believes in magic, namely, that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or caused itself to exist before it existed.  He's not bright enough to formulate a coherent counterargument in the face of the logical, mathematical and scientific imperatives regarding the origin of the physical world, so he just spouts ad hominem and slogans.
> 
> He really doesn't know dick about the pertinent sciences of origins and incessantly "straw mans" the observations that stump his hapless brain and leave him drooling.
> 
> For example, he actually believes that the DNA evidence necessarily supports evodelusion because he cannot grasp the fact that a branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry is scientifically indemonstrable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism, let alone grasp the fact that the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.
> 
> *abu afak's *mind is a slammed-shut door.
> 
> In fact, I suspect that Toddsterpatriot is the only person on this thread who grasps what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

Ringworm lost early on.
They always do.
*Never takes me more than Two posts.

You remember!
Your PANIC when I challenged you on your claim that abiogenesis was "manifestly impossible," and asked you why that was any less likely than God poofing from nowhere.

You had no answer, and instead PAN!CKED and replied with a question in 'response.'
You PAN!CKED and tried that DISHONEST ploy because you were Outed/LOST.
But it was over that fast.*
There's always a premise error or faulty logic
You have to do both in every thread to try and Discredit the Overwhelming evidence for evolution, and ZERO for a god/gods. 

`


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> You're hoping to impress the other Harun Yahya groupies with your poetry?



You're conflating your metaphysical apriority of naturalism and the actualities of the observed evidence . . . as if I wouldn't notice.

A host of insidious insinuations
Prance about my contemplations
And wrap their velvet paws around my throat.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> I can't tell if you believe in evolution or not.  You seem to mix natural and supernatural causes of speciation, where is the line?



I do not believe that naturalism is true; hence, I do not believe that evodelusion is true.


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> Ringworm lost early on.
> They always do.
> *Never takes me more than Two posts.
> 
> You remember!
> Your PANIC when I challenged you on your claim that abiogenesis was "manifestly impossible," and asked you why that was any less likely than God poofing from nowhere.
> 
> You had no answer, and instead PAN!CKED and replied with a question in 'response.'
> You PAN!CKED and tried that DISHONEST ploy because you were Outed/LOST.
> But it was over that fast.*
> There's always a premise error or faulty logic
> You have to do both in every thread to try and Discredit the Overwhelming evidence for evolution, and ZERO for a god/gods.



Shall I offer my head on a platter,
A mere chit of a chat amidst the clatter,
For one last persuasive dance before his sire’s throne?

No!

I’m not a martyr!
I’ve no great calling to obey.
I’ve no olive branch to offer.
Let his conscience rot away!
I’m a pauper with high notions,
A poet with some flair.
I plot stories full of riches,
But have no coat or hope to spare.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't tell if you believe in evolution or not.  You seem to mix natural and supernatural causes of speciation, where is the line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that naturalism is true; hence, I do not believe that evodelusion is true.
Click to expand...

Yet you claimed that the mechanism for the creation of new species was a natural one.  Can I assume you've changed your mind?


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> Yet you claimed that the mechanism for the creation of new species was a natural one.  Can I assume you've changed your mind?



No.  In the past, I believe that God created new organisms predicated on the priorly existing genetic motifs of other organisms, which he periodically modified and transcribed onto the new organisms he thusly brought into being_—_wholly formed and equipped to adaptively radiate thereafter via the natural mechanisms of natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and genetic mutation.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sans your understanding of the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, I thought I would lend an assist. Not having any study in the biological and physical sciences, your lack of a science vocabulary is a hinderance.
> 
> The theory of evolution has undergone rigorous review in the scientific community and remains the best, most coherent explanation of the observed development of life on Earth.  The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. Supporting the fact of evolution are the complimentary sciences of biology, paleontology, earth science, chemistry, etc. The theory of evolution explains the facts.  The theory of evolution is no less valid than theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based).  On the fundamental, most basic issues of the theory of evolution, such as the _demonstrated facts_ of common descent and natural selection, there is no controversy within the scientific community. With near exclusivity, the only controversy emerges from fundamentalist Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evodelusionist's interpretation of the available evidence is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism.
> 
> Since you refuse to address the substance of speciation via common design, answer my question:
> 
> Shall I walk or ride the bus?​Ride the bus or take a walk?​
Click to expand...


I think your retreat to slogans you share at Harun Yahya are a poor substitute for your illiteracy regarding science. The ''evodelusionist's'' interpretation of evidence is based on interpretation of the evidence. See how that works?  Have you ever stopped to consider that we _accept_ the inescapable conclusions drawn from the _physical evidence_ that life has DESCENDED through millions of years from a common ancestor? We accept evolution because that's what the evidence unambiguously tells us, and for no other reason. 

Actually, I don't refuse to address the substance of speciation via common design. You refuse to support your case for supernatural common ''design''. You refuse to support your case for supernatural design because you know you can not do so.  Matter and energy conform to and behave according to ''laws'' we are learning about and they happen to behave like they do. The fact that the natural world (as opposed to your undemonstrated supernatural world) operates as it does, does not presume that were necessarily designed by your particular polytheistic gods to do so. If you feel that the properties of nature require that they have been designed by your particular polytheistic gods, please provide evidence of such. 

Here is your opportunity to present your evidence for anything, anything at all, that shows ''design'' by one or more supernatural entities. 

__________  <----- Here ya' go. Here's a placeholder. Show us the supermagicalism. 

If you have any new scientific data on ID'iot creationism, you should come forward with it. Everything so far submitted by ID' creationists has been completely lacking in evidence and totally unsubstantiated. 

It is difficult to interpret supernatural evidence as a means to interpret the supernatural because there's, you know, no supernatural evidence in evidence.


----------



## Ringtone

Bush92 said:


> Only the Lord Thy God knows the answer.



Well, the essence of the hypothesis of evolution is a transitionally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry soley predicated on natural mechanisms.  I don't see how that can be reconciled to intelligent origins, let alone the achievement of any predetermined goal. 

As I have written elsewhere:

Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive, but mutually affirming sources of information about the same indivisible reality.  They rightly held that divinity constituted the only guarantee that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition were reliably synchronized with the substances and mechanisms of empirical phenomena.  What are we to make of the pronouncements of Neo-Darwinists?  Are they not the stuff of a perception-altering process of speciation?​
By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point?  Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism, Oxford University Press (1974, pg. 116)​


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you claimed that the mechanism for the creation of new species was a natural one.  Can I assume you've changed your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  In the past, I believe that God created new organisms predicated on the priorly existing genetic motifs of other organisms, which he periodically modified and transcribed onto the new organisms he thusly brought into being_—_wholly formed and equipped to adaptively radiate thereafter via the natural mechanisms of natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and genetic mutation.
Click to expand...

"The Gawds Did It''

Interesting that the gods would provide for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet after the flood-thingy. Science tells us what _radiates_ from familial and incestuous relations.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Lord Thy God knows the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the essence of the hypothesis of evolution is a transitionally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry soley predicated on natural mechanisms.  I don't see how that can be reconciled to intelligent origins, let alone the achievement of any predetermined goal.
> 
> As I have written elsewhere:
> 
> Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive, but mutually affirming sources of information about the same indivisible reality.  They rightly held that divinity constituted the only guarantee that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition were reliably synchronized with the substances and mechanisms of empirical phenomena.  What are we to make of the pronouncements of Neo-Darwinists?  Are they not the stuff of a perception-altering process of speciation?​
> By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point?  Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism, Oxford University Press (1974, pg. 116)​
Click to expand...


"Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive.''

It will come as a shock to the hyper-religious that science has advanced a bit since the Dark Ages.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> ...* in no way, shape or form preclude the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events*


Why is this a necessary factor? ... in many cases, the fossil record shows this isn't a step, the evolutionary change is smooth and without sudden jumps in adaptive change ...



Ringtone said:


> In college I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on evolutionary biology ...



So what? ... what grades did you carry in abstract mathematics ... or did you even take courses in such ... explain in mathematical terms why you disagree with the paper I posted? ... frankly, the way you focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism, I seriously doubt you've taken _any_ upper division biology ...


----------



## Bush92

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Lord Thy God knows the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the essence of the hypothesis of evolution is a transitionally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry soley predicated on natural mechanisms.  I don't see how that can be reconciled to intelligent origins, let alone the achievement of any predetermined goal.
> 
> As I have written elsewhere:
> 
> Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive, but mutually affirming sources of information about the same indivisible reality.  They rightly held that divinity constituted the only guarantee that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition were reliably synchronized with the substances and mechanisms of empirical phenomena.  What are we to make of the pronouncements of Neo-Darwinists?  Are they not the stuff of a perception-altering process of speciation?​
> By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point?  Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism, Oxford University Press (1974, pg. 116)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive.''
> 
> It will come as a shock to the hyper-religious that science has advanced a bit since the Dark Ages.
Click to expand...

Dumb.


----------



## Bush92

Ringtone said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Lord Thy God knows the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the essence of the hypothesis of evolution is a transitionally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry soley predicated on natural mechanisms.  I don't see how that can be reconciled to intelligent origins, let alone the achievement of any predetermined goal.
> 
> As I have written elsewhere:
> 
> Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive, but mutually affirming sources of information about the same indivisible reality.  They rightly held that divinity constituted the only guarantee that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition were reliably synchronized with the substances and mechanisms of empirical phenomena.  What are we to make of the pronouncements of Neo-Darwinists?  Are they not the stuff of a perception-altering process of speciation?​
> By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point?  Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism, Oxford University Press (1974, pg. 116)​
Click to expand...

It's simple. God runs the show. Your bullshit science is superceded.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> "Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive.''
> 
> It will come as a shock to the hyper-religious that science has advanced a bit since the Dark Ages.



No, actually, the irrationality of atheism/agnosticism and the metaphysical naturalism thereof are the spiralling death of the biological sciences.  Evodelusion is the stuff of a gratuitous apriority that axiomatically yields a false interpretation of the evidence; it's a myth, a dream, a bad trip, it's Alice when she's ten feet tall, a fairy tale, a fantasy, a fable, a yarn . . . a long con . . . indeed, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity of human invention.


----------



## Ringtone

Bush92 said:


> It's simple. God runs the show. Your bullshit science is superceded.



Well, I agree that natural processes were periodically superseded by God, but I don't see why the natural processes of science are bullshit.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *First of all, your science is dated by nearly 20 years. *
> 
> Dated? You mean in the last 20 years DNA sequencing stopped working?
> Stopped showing relatedness? What do you mean exactly?
> 
> *As for the rest, once again, you're failing to grasp the fact that  evolutionists are begging the question, presupposing naturalism is true!*
> 
> God can't use evolution? Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about your dated science regarding so-called pseudogenes.
> 
> Moving on. . . .
> 
> In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution sans the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution*
> 
> Prove? Who said prove?
> 
> DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, okay, fair enough.  I misread you.  I didn't mean to misrepresent your position.  My bad.
> 
> Perhaps you would explain in greater detail precisely how DNA sequencing supports a common ancestry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same link......
> 
> 
> _As the ability to sequence the nucleotides making up DNA has improved, it also has become possible to use genes to reconstruct the evolutionary history of organisms. Because of mutations, the sequence of nucleotides in a gene gradually changes over time. The more closely related two organisms are, the less different their DNA will be. Because there are tens of thousands of genes in humans and other organisms, DNA contains a tremendous amount of information about the evolutionary history of each organism.
> 
> Genes evolve at different rates because, although mutation is a random event, some proteins are much more tolerant of changes in their amino acid sequence than are other proteins. For this reason, the genes that encode these more tolerant, less constrained proteins evolve faster The average rate at which a particular kind of gene or protein evolves gives rise to the concept of a "molecular clock." Molecular clocks run rapidly for less constrained proteins and slowly for more constrained proteins, though they all time the same evolutionary events.
> 
> The figure on this page compares three molecular clocks: for cytochrome c proteins, which interact intimately with other macromolecules and are quite constrained in their amino acid sequences; for the less rigidly constrained hemoglobins, which interact mainly with oxygen and other small molecules; and for fibrinopeptides, which are protein fragments that are cut from larger proteins (fibrinogens) when blood clots. The clock for fibrinopeptides runs rapidly; 1 percent of the amino acids change in a little longer than 1 million years. At the other extreme, the molecular clock runs slowly for cytochrome c; a 1 percent change in amino acid sequence requires 20 million years. The hemoglobin clock is intermediate.
> 
> The concept of a molecular clock is useful for two purposes. It determines evolutionary relationships among organisms, and it indicates the time in the past when species started to diverge from one another. Once the clock for a particular gene or protein has been calibrated by reference to some event whose time is known, the actual chronological time when all other events occurred can be determined by examining the protein or gene tree._
> 
> View attachment 459172
Click to expand...



Would I be correct in assuming that you're a theistic evolutionist?


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Why is this a necessary factor? ... in many cases, the fossil record shows this isn't a step, the evolutionary change is smooth and without sudden jumps in adaptive change ...



Actually, the paleontological record is littered with the abrupt appearances of seemingly new and wholly formed organisms sans priorly existing transitional forms.



ReinyDays said:


> So what? ... what grades did you carry in abstract mathematics ... or did you even take courses in such ... explain in mathematical terms why you disagree with the paper I posted? ... frankly, the way you focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism, I seriously doubt you've taken _any_ upper division biology ...



I established my credentials only to make the point that a fully understand evodelusion and why I reject it.  That's all. 

Focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism?!  You're a liar.  My focus has been on the mythical apriority that drives your fantasies. 

As for the math. . . .  LOL!  You explain how it proves that naturalism and the axiomatic interpretation of the empirical evidence thereof are true.  The mathematics you sighted are nothing more than the calculi of hindsight, wherein evodelusion is assumed relative to the pertinent history of speciation


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> I think your retreat to slogans you share at Harun Yahya are a poor substitute for your illiteracy regarding science. The ''evodelusionist's'' interpretation of evidence is based on interpretation of the evidence. See how that works?  Have you ever stopped to consider that we _accept_ the inescapable conclusions drawn from the _physical evidence_ that life has DESCENDED through millions of years from a common ancestor? We accept evolution because that's what the evidence unambiguously tells us, and for no other reason.
> 
> Actually, I don't refuse to address the substance of speciation via common design. You refuse to support your case for supernatural common ''design''. You refuse to support your case for supernatural design because you know you can not do so.  Matter and energy conform to and behave according to ''laws'' we are learning about and they happen to behave like they do. The fact that the natural world (as opposed to your undemonstrated supernatural world) operates as it does, does not presume that were necessarily designed by your particular polytheistic gods to do so. If you feel that the properties of nature require that they have been designed by your particular polytheistic gods, please provide evidence of such.
> 
> Here is your opportunity to present your evidence for anything, anything at all, that shows ''design'' by one or more supernatural entities.
> 
> __________  <----- Here ya' go. Here's a placeholder. Show us the supermagicalism.
> 
> If you have any new scientific data on ID'iot creationism, you should come forward with it. Everything so far submitted by ID' creationists has been completely lacking in evidence and totally unsubstantiated.
> 
> It is difficult to interpret supernatural evidence as a means to interpret the supernatural because there's, you know, no supernatural evidence in evidence.



When the sky sobs and the wind wails,
When the Earth shakes the dust off Her face—
I discreetly take my leave and fade into the gray.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.


I will wait until your research paper is published. Don't forget to iron out the kinks of your theoretical mathematics paper. Kinks like: having no theory or mathematics.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> Actually, the paleontological record is littered with the abrupt appearances of seemingly new and wholly formed organisms sans priorly existing transitional forms.



This is true ... but only in some taxa ... in others we do see the smooth incremental transition from one form to another ... one wonderful example of this is the hawthorns, the transitions between populations across the geography is very step-wise ... taxa that live only a few tens of miles away show very little difference, yet as this distance increases the differences do as well ... to the point that halfway across the continent, the taxa can't sucessfully breed with each other ...



Ringtone said:


> I established my credentials only to make the point that a fully understand evodelusion and why I reject it.  That's all.
> 
> Focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism?!  You're a liar.  My focus has been on the mythical apriority that drives your fantasies.
> 
> As for the math. . . .  LOL!  You explain how it proves that naturalism and the axiomatic interpretation of the empirical evidence thereof are true.  The mathematics you sighted are nothing more than the calculi of hindsight, wherein evodelusion is assumed relative to the pertinent history of speciation



You only claim to have gotten A's at some two-bit liberal arts college ... your OP title clearly states this is a mathematical discussion ... why won't you discuss the mathematics that back up evolution? ...

This is the same answer you always give me ... "You're a liar" ... tsk tsk ... I explained that's the loser's out, you've failed once again to make your point and are only left with personal attacks ... I've posted the beginning of the rigid mathematical proof that was in effect a good 100 years ago, the proof much of the Modern Synthesis is based on ...

Maybe your degree is in Psycho-babble? ... the way you throw around words incorrectly shows your little private liberal arts college doesn't have much in the way of proper science programs ... it's a shame the tax-payer short changed your public education so badly ...

You rely on divine miracles to create new species ... and yet say mine in a fantasy ... yeah, right ... even the Bible disagrees with you ...


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you claimed that the mechanism for the creation of new species was a natural one.  Can I assume you've changed your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  In the past, I believe that God created new organisms predicated on the priorly existing genetic motifs of other organisms, which he periodically modified and transcribed onto the new organisms he thusly brought into being_—_wholly formed and equipped to adaptively radiate thereafter via the natural mechanisms of natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and genetic mutation.
Click to expand...

God is the very definition of supernatural.  I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course.   It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.


----------



## ReinyDays

alang1216 said:


> God is the very definition of supernatural.  I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course.   It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.



God created each plant and animal perfectly ... nature won't take it's course and blemish that which is created perfectly ... only Man can corrupt what God sets in motion ... the OP is trying to blend the two philosophical arguments into a single cohesive theory, which is just blind ... evolution isn't philosophy ...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive.''
> 
> It will come as a shock to the hyper-religious that science has advanced a bit since the Dark Ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, the irrationality of atheism/agnosticism and the metaphysical naturalism thereof are the spiralling death of the biological sciences.  Evodelusion is the stuff of a gratuitous apriority that axiomatically yields a false interpretation of the evidence; it's a myth, a dream, a bad trip, it's Alice when she's ten feet tall, a fairy tale, a fantasy, a fable, a yarn . . . a long con . . . indeed, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity of human invention.
Click to expand...

It is regrettable that the ID’iot creationer ministries churn out such science loathing, ignorance embracing cultists.

To promote the idea that the biological sciences are some vast conspiracy is pretty typical for religious extremists, the Christian Taliban. I’m afraid it is a case that the ID’iot creationers / Christian Taliban and the rational, thinking world are diametrically opposed to one another. Biological evolution as well as all of the physical sciences are rooted in naturalism, which attributes ALL phenomenon in the universe to natural explanations. This is consistent with all of human history and all of human knowledge. Obviously, this explicitly rules out the supernatural, hence the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". As we see with all claims to supernaturalism by the ID’iot creationers / Christian Taliban, when they are tasked with demonstrating their gods and the supernatural acts performed by their gods, they fail to do so.

One obvious refutation to the ID’iot creationer claim of a 6,000 year old planet is the stratified order of fossil remains. If all organisms lived within such a timeframe as the ID’iot creationers believe, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket of sedimentary layers. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with ID’iot creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. In addition, there would be no extinction events found in the fossil record. There are at least five major extinction events in the fossil record.


----------



## alang1216

ReinyDays said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the very definition of supernatural.  I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course.   It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created each plant and animal perfectly ... nature won't take it's course and blemish that which is created perfectly ... only Man can corrupt what God sets in motion ... the OP is trying to blend the two philosophical arguments into a single cohesive theory, which is just blind ... evolution isn't philosophy ...
Click to expand...

Pretty arrogant of man to tell God how he should do things.  Man is impatient but God is ageless, maybe evolution is how he likes to work.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your retreat to slogans you share at Harun Yahya are a poor substitute for your illiteracy regarding science. The ''evodelusionist's'' interpretation of evidence is based on interpretation of the evidence. See how that works?  Have you ever stopped to consider that we _accept_ the inescapable conclusions drawn from the _physical evidence_ that life has DESCENDED through millions of years from a common ancestor? We accept evolution because that's what the evidence unambiguously tells us, and for no other reason.
> 
> Actually, I don't refuse to address the substance of speciation via common design. You refuse to support your case for supernatural common ''design''. You refuse to support your case for supernatural design because you know you can not do so.  Matter and energy conform to and behave according to ''laws'' we are learning about and they happen to behave like they do. The fact that the natural world (as opposed to your undemonstrated supernatural world) operates as it does, does not presume that were necessarily designed by your particular polytheistic gods to do so. If you feel that the properties of nature require that they have been designed by your particular polytheistic gods, please provide evidence of such.
> 
> Here is your opportunity to present your evidence for anything, anything at all, that shows ''design'' by one or more supernatural entities.
> 
> __________  <----- Here ya' go. Here's a placeholder. Show us the supermagicalism.
> 
> If you have any new scientific data on ID'iot creationism, you should come forward with it. Everything so far submitted by ID' creationists has been completely lacking in evidence and totally unsubstantiated.
> 
> It is difficult to interpret supernatural evidence as a means to interpret the supernatural because there's, you know, no supernatural evidence in evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the sky sobs and the wind wails,
> When the Earth shakes the dust off Her face—
> I discreetly take my leave and fade into the gray.
Click to expand...


It seems the curriculum at the madrassah you studied at was not real rigorous toward matters of science or literature.

Why do you post threads in the science section when you have no ability to address science matters and only intend to street corner proselytize?


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> It seems the curriculum at the madrassah you studied at was not real rigorous toward matters of science or literature.
> 
> Why do you post threads in the science section when you have no ability to address science matters and only intend to street corner proselytize?



My sodden flesh—bleached and rancid, trampled by gleeful feet—lay wasted,
stretched out on hot sands.​


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the curriculum at the madrassah you studied at was not real rigorous toward matters of science or literature.
> 
> Why do you post threads in the science section when you have no ability to address science matters and only intend to street corner proselytize?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sodden flesh—bleached and rancid, trampled by gleeful feet—lay wasted,
> stretched out on hot sands.​
Click to expand...

It must be embarrassing for you. Not having an education in the sciences leaves you to spam the thread because you're unable to address some pretty basic concepts related to biology.

 "Beached and rancid" is also a description of your intellectual capacity.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> Pretty arrogant of man to tell God how he should do things.  Man is impatient but God is ageless, maybe evolution is how he likes to work.



I agree.  That's why I wrote the following in the above:

Evodelusion is the stuff of a gratuitous apriority that axiomatically yields a false interpretation of the evidence; it's a myth, a dream, a bad trip, it's Alice when she's ten feet tall, a fairy tale, a fantasy, a fable, a yarn . . . a long con . . . indeed, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity of human invention.​


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty arrogant of man to tell God how he should do things.  Man is impatient but God is ageless, maybe evolution is how he likes to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That's why I wrote the following in the above:
> 
> Evodelusion is the stuff of a gratuitous apriority that axiomatically yields a false interpretation of the evidence; it's a myth, a dream, a bad trip, it's Alice when she's ten feet tall, a fairy tale, a fantasy, a fable, a yarn . . . a long con . . . indeed, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity of human invention.​
Click to expand...

Yet here you sit, the brave challenger, shouting into the void on an anonymous political message board, with not a single tool available to challenge the theory you call monstrous without any understanding of it.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty arrogant of man to tell God how he should do things.  Man is impatient but God is ageless, maybe evol ution is how he likes to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That's why I wrote the following in the above:
> 
> Evodelusion is the stuff of a gratuitous apriority that axiomatically yields a false interpretation of the evidence; it's a myth, a dream, a bad trip, it's Alice when she's ten feet tall, a fairy tale, a fantasy, a fable, a yarn . . . a long con . . . indeed, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity of human invention.​
Click to expand...

It has always amazed me how people who profess to believe in God look at the world, obviously a work of God (should he exist), and and choose not to believe their own eyes because of their logic or theology.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty arrogant of man to tell God how he should do things.  Man is impatient but God is ageless, maybe evolution is how he likes to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That's why I wrote the following in the above:
> 
> Evodelusion is the stuff of a gratuitous apriority that axiomatically yields a false interpretation of the evidence; it's a myth, a dream, a bad trip, it's Alice when she's ten feet tall, a fairy tale, a fantasy, a fable, a yarn . . . a long con . . . indeed, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity of human invention.​
Click to expand...

I responded with:
It is regrettable that the ID’iot creationer ministries churn out such science loathing, ignorance embracing cultists.

To promote the idea that the biological sciences are some vast conspiracy is pretty typical for religious extremists, the Christian Taliban. I’m afraid it is a case that the ID’iot creationers / Christian Taliban and the rational, thinking world are diametrically opposed to one another. Biological evolution as well as all of the physical sciences are rooted in naturalism, which attributes ALL phenomenon in the universe to natural explanations. This is consistent with all of human history and all of human knowledge. Obviously, this explicitly rules out the supernatural, hence the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". As we see with all claims to supernaturalism by the ID’iot creationers / Christian Taliban, when they are tasked with demonstrating their gods and the supernatural acts performed by their gods, they fail to do so.

One obvious refutation to the ID’iot creationer claim of a 6,000 year old planet is the stratified order of fossil remains. If all organisms lived within such a timeframe as the ID’iot creationers believe, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket of sedimentary layers. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with ID’iot creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. In addition, there would be no extinction events found in the fossil record. There are at least five major extinction events in the fossil record. 


Your best effort was to respond with something about your ''bleached and rancid'' intellect. 

Perhaps you should spend more study time at Harun Yahya,


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> God is the very definition of supernatural.  I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course.   It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.



_God_ is not the very definition of "supernatural".  The term _supernatural_ has various connotations, and there is a vast difference between the concept of divinity of classical theism and that of pagan materialism.  The only connotation in which the term entails the divinity of classical theism is that offered, for example, by Merriam Webster:  "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible [or] observable universe". 

The essence of biblical creationism is the divine origin and design of terrestrial creatures, and, once again, I hold that the evidence bests supports the notion that all of biological history is a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.

Your pejorative language is noted, but utterly irrelevant sans an explanation as to how, precisely, the observable evidence precludes this potentiality.

The atheist in the gaps fallacy that nature did it is a mathematical and engineering monstrocity.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> It has always amazed me how people who profess to believe in God look at the world, obviously a work of God (should he exist), and and choose not to believe their own eyes because of their logic or theology.



It always amazes me how evodelusionists fail to grasp the fact that their interpretation of the empirical evidence is predicated on nothing more than their metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> God created each plant and animal perfectly ... nature won't take it's course and blemish that which is created perfectly ... only Man can corrupt what God sets in motion ... the OP is trying to blend the two philosophical arguments into a single cohesive theory, which is just blind ... evolution isn't philosophy ...



The hypothesis of evodelusion is solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.  It's a self-imposed fantasy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> The hypothesis of evodelusion is solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism




Yes idiot, because that is how evidence works. It is why evidence exists at all: determinism and the universal laws of physics. This is why you can never and will never bring evidence to bear for your backwards, magical horseshit. The moment you insist upon magic, you have disqualified yourself from any deference to or use of the concept of evidence.

Hey look...a glass of water is spilled on the table. A normal person would look for deterministic evidence (i.e., evidence) of how it happened, like the table being bumped. A fool like you tries to say it could have been magical rainbow unicorns from the 7th dimension, because, hey, magic happens and you can't prove it false. And hey, look at this centuries-old ontological parlor trick that says magical rainbow unicorns HAVE to exist. Your continuing exercise of trying to put a tuxedo on this turd is high comedy.

But thank you for the simpleton tautology wrapped in a pile of thesaurus puke.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has always amazed me how people who profess to believe in God look at the world, obviously a work of God (should he exist), and and choose not to believe their own eyes because of their logic or theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how evodelusionists fail to grasp the fact that their interpretation of the empirical evidence is predicated on nothing more than their metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.
Click to expand...

I suppose your conspiracy theory is that the documented evidence for biological evolution consists of a vast, global network of evilutionist atheist scientists who have all jointly conspired against Christian extremists.

Your poetry is boring. I want you to entertain us with some singing and dancing.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> I responded with:
> It is regrettable that the ID’iot creationer ministries churn out such science loathing, ignorance embracing cultists.
> 
> To promote the idea that the biological sciences are some vast conspiracy is pretty typical for religious extremists, the Christian Taliban. I’m afraid it is a case that the ID’iot creationers / Christian Taliban and the rational, thinking world are diametrically opposed to one another. Biological evolution as well as all of the physical sciences are rooted in naturalism, which attributes ALL phenomenon in the universe to natural explanations. This is consistent with all of human history and all of human knowledge. Obviously, this explicitly rules out the supernatural, hence the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". As we see with all claims to supernaturalism by the ID’iot creationers / Christian Taliban, when they are tasked with demonstrating their gods and the supernatural acts performed by their gods, they fail to do so.
> 
> One obvious refutation to the ID’iot creationer claim of a 6,000 year old planet is the stratified order of fossil remains. If all organisms lived within such a timeframe as the ID’iot creationers believe, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket of sedimentary layers. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with ID’iot creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. In addition, there would be no extinction events found in the fossil record. There are at least five major extinction events in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> Your best effort was to respond with something about your ''bleached and rancid'' intellect.
> 
> Perhaps you should spend more study time at Harun Yahya,



We have come to the end of a certain class of human folly—
Raised up and spread abroad by brutal hands,
Passed through many sewers . . . beneath the glistening lanes,
Incessantly chanted by clueless brats
And shrugged off by indifferent, universal imperatives.
Yet we still hear, you and I, that vicious chorus of whores,
with curled lips,​Sniveling behind the final curtain.
Oh, aren’t they finished?
Exposed and known?
Are you certain?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the very definition of supernatural.  I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course.   It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _God_ is not the very definition of "supernatural".  The term _supernatural_ has various connotations, and there is a vast difference between the concept of divinity of classical theism and that of pagan materialism.  The only connotation in which the term entails the divinity of classical theism is that offered, for example, by Merriam Webster:  "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible [or] observable universe".
> 
> The essence of biblical creationism is the divine origin and design of terrestrial creatures, and, once again, I hold that the evidence bests supports the notion that all of biological history is a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.
> 
> Your pejorative language is noted, but utterly irrelevant sans an explanation as to how, precisely, the observable evidence precludes this potentiality.
> 
> The atheist in the gaps fallacy that nature did it is a mathematical and engineering monstrocity.
Click to expand...

Actually, two of the gods populating christianity: God Sr. and the "Holy Ghost'' are the very definition of supernatural entities. 

Some song and dance, please. A musical number would be fine.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the very definition of supernatural.  I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course.   It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _God_ is not the very definition of "supernatural".  The term _supernatural_ has various connotations, and there is a vast difference between the concept of divinity of classical theism and that of pagan materialism.  The only connotation in which the term entails the divinity of classical theism is that offered, for example, by Merriam Webster:  "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible [or] observable universe".
> 
> The essence of biblical creationism is the divine origin and design of terrestrial creatures, and, once again, I hold that the evidence bests supports the notion that all of biological history is a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.
> 
> Your pejorative language is noted, but utterly irrelevant sans an explanation as to how, precisely, the observable evidence precludes this potentiality.
> 
> The atheist in the gaps fallacy that nature did it is a mathematical and engineering monstrocity.
Click to expand...

If God created  the universe I'd say that is supernatural since it didn't create itself.

I can't prove a negative, namely that God does not exist or create species as you say.  I have just never seen convincing evidence to believe either.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has always amazed me how people who profess to believe in God look at the world, obviously a work of God (should he exist), and and choose not to believe their own eyes because of their logic or theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how evodelusionists fail to grasp the fact that their interpretation of the empirical evidence is predicated on nothing more than their metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.
Click to expand...

I've lived many years and have yet to encounter anything I'd attribute to a supernatural power.  Until I do I stick with nature alone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> No, dummy, the term _God_ does not define the term "supernatural".


This is my favorite part of the con, really. It illustrates, in a nutshell, the cognitive dissonance and pure dishonesty of the proselytizing snake oil salesmen.

They will spend a lot of time and energy insisting only gods are capable of magical concepts and actions that defy natutal law. "Nothing can come from nothing! 'Cept when the lawd does it!"

"Nothing can have no beginning...'cept my favorite gods!"

Then they run straight into the brick wall when it is pointed out to them that they are arguing for and believe in magic. This is when the teeth gnashing and hand wringing begins, as these fetishists are absolutely devastated by the idea of their preferred magical horseshit going on the same shelf as any magical horseshit claim made by anyone, ever.

The thought that of all their effort, parlor tricks, and pompous, arrogant behavior and claims have ended in their elaborate myths being on the same shelf as spoonbending and astrology makes their butts pucker up at the speed of light.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, two of the gods populating christianity: God Sr. and the "Holy Ghost'' are the very definition of supernatural entities.
> 
> Some song and dance, please. A musical number would be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dummy, the term _God_ does not define the term "supernatural".  As I told alang, that's nonsensical.
> 
> The meaning of the term _God_ = "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe" (Merriam Webster).
> 
> The term _supernatural_ generally denotes "some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".  The only sense in which this applies to the divinity of classical theism goes to the term's connotation regarding that which is "of or relat[es] to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe".
Click to expand...

That’s pretty darn funny. You unwittingly defined your gods as supernatural entities.

"some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".

Give us a song and dance, now.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Actually, two of the gods populating christianity: God Sr. and the "Holy Ghost'' are the very definition of supernatural entities.
> 
> Some song and dance, please. A musical number would be fine.



No, dummy, the term _God_ does not define the term "supernatural".  As I told alang, that's nonsensical.

The meaning of the term _God_ = "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe" (Merriam Webster). 

The term _supernatural_ generally denotes "some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".  The only sense in which this applies to the divinity of classical theism goes to the term's connotation regarding that which is "of or relat[es] to an order of existence beyond the visible [or] observable universe".

The term _God_ denotes a supernatural being, but it is _not_ the definition of _supernatural_.

See how that works?

Your thinking is an example of a categorical error.  When one doesn't speak clearly, one's not thinking clearly.  That's how one like *ReinyDays*, for example, conflates potential infinities and actual infinities, and starts imagining that the latter have existentiality in nature outside minds.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> I've lived many years and have yet to encounter anything I'd attribute to a supernatural power.  Until I do I stick with nature alone.



False!  You encounter God's creation every moment of you life.


----------



## Hollie

I never did see any math in this thread challenging evolution. So in that sense, this thread is just another fraud, one that typifies the threads started by the OP of this complete mess.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> That’s pretty darn funny. You unwittingly defined your gods as supernatural entities.
> 
> "some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".
> 
> Give us a song and dance, now.


What's funny is your failure to grasp the limitations of scientific inquiry.  That's the very reason logic and mathematics, for example, precede and have primacy over science.

Winning!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created each plant and animal perfectly ... nature won't take it's course and blemish that which is created perfectly ... only Man can corrupt what God sets in motion ... the OP is trying to blend the two philosophical arguments into a single cohesive theory, which is just blind ... evolution isn't philosophy ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hypothesis of evodelusion is solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.  It's a self-imposed fantasy.
Click to expand...

The Theory of Evolution is, because you missed it, a scientific theory as is the Theory of Gravity, for one example. The Theory of Evolution is based on the evidence supporting the theory.

The term “theory” in the science realm has specific connotations. Your madrassah has done you a disservice by allowing you to post in a forum and related to a subject you have no knowledge of.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s pretty darn funny. You unwittingly defined your gods as supernatural entities.
> 
> "some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".
> 
> Give us a song and dance, now.
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is your failure to grasp the limitations of scientific inquiry.  That's the very reason logic and mathematics, for example, precede and have primacy over science.
> 
> Winning!
Click to expand...

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of your not understanding the methods of science, you apparently believe that willful ignorance precedes and has primacy over ant attempt at learning the subject matter.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> I never did see any math in this thread challenging evolution. So in that sense, this thread is just another fraud, one that typifies the threads started by the OP of this complete mess.


Of course it is. Ringtone has nothing but theatrics and appeals to emotion at his disposal. The ontological folly in his one-trick bag can be used to argue literally anything, including its opposite conclusions. Ringtone clearly fell victim to this same pomp and circumstance, probably as an impressionable child, and so does not recognize it for the dog and pony show that it is.

You can be sure he walks away from these discussions every day feeling victorious and magnanimous, because that is the goal of the ACTUAL con, here. Then he proceeds to live his life within the confines of determinism and scientific knowledge, just like any godless heathen alive today. All the while oblivious to the fact that all of his dishonest effort has amounted to exactly nothing.

Because the only thing he is attempting to accomplish, really, is self soothing. What we have here is a person of shaky faith who is trying to be his own cheerleader. We are literally participating in Ringtone's exercise of convincing himself to maintain his beliefs in magic and sky fairies.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> I never did see any math in this thread challenging evolution. So in that sense, this thread is just another fraud, one that typifies the threads started by the OP of this complete mess.



See video in OP.  Note how the evodelusionary calculi of population genetics itself falsifies evodelusion.  It's a real hoot!

Still winning!


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> The Theory of Evolution is, because you missed it, a scientific theory as is the Theory of Gravity, for one example. The Theory of Evolution is based on the evidence supporting the theory.
> 
> The term “theory” in the science realm has specific connotations. Your madrassah has done you a disservice by allowing you to post in a forum and related to a subject you have no knowledge of.



When we are laid out on stainless steel beneath florescent lights,
When our sightless eyes are closed by busy fingers,
When they have numbered and tagged our toes—
Numbered and tagged them all!—
Who shall pluck out the tufts of hair sprouting from our fleshy ears?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Winning!


As I was saying...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never did see any math in this thread challenging evolution. So in that sense, this thread is just another fraud, one that typifies the threads started by the OP of this complete mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See video in OP.  Note how the evodelusionary calculi of population genetics itself falsifies evodelusion.  It's a real hoot!
> 
> Still winning!
Click to expand...

While you may be impressed by a clown show of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video, why would you presume that others would share your gullibility?

As usual, we’re left with the religious extremist fraudulently inventing thread titles and then being reduced to spamming his own thread with juvenile nonsense


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Theory of Evolution is, because you missed it, a scientific theory as is the Theory of Gravity, for one example. The Theory of Evolution is based on the evidence supporting the theory.
> 
> The term “theory” in the science realm has specific connotations. Your madrassah has done you a disservice by allowing you to post in a forum and related to a subject you have no knowledge of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we are laid out on stainless steel beneath florescent lights,
> When our sightless eyes are closed by busy fingers,
> When they have numbered and tagged our toes—
> Numbered and tagged them all!—
> Who shall pluck out the tufts of hair sprouting from our fleshy ears?
Click to expand...

I’ll have to take the above to mean you’re hopelessly befuddled, not able to offer a coherent comment and have no aversion to humiliating yourself in front of others on a public message board.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> While you may be impressed by a clown show of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video, why would you presume that others would share your gullibility?
> 
> As usual, we’re left with the religious extremist fraudulently inventing thread titles and then being reduced to spamming his own thread with juvenile nonsense




When we are laid out on stainless steel beneath fluorescent lamps,
When our sightless eyes are closed by busy fingers,
When they have numbered and tagged our toes—
Numbered and tagged them all!—
Who shall pluck out the tufts of hair sprouting from our fleshy ears?


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> I’ll have to take the above to mean you’re hopelessly befuddled, not able to offer a coherent comment and have no aversion to humiliating yourself in front of others on a public message board.



A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
And dance beneath the cloudy skies.

Still winning!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Still winning!


Still predictable.... dime a dozen...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll have to take the above to mean you’re hopelessly befuddled, not able to offer a coherent comment and have no aversion to humiliating yourself in front of others on a public message board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
> And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
> 
> Still winning!
Click to expand...

What are you winning?

A thread that promotes a fraud, a thread in which you can’t respond to challenges to your appeals to supernaturalism and you waste time and bandwidth with pointless spam.

Your behavior is buffoonish.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> What are you winning?
> 
> A thread that promotes a fraud, a thread in which you can’t respond to challenges to your appeals to supernaturalism and you waste time and bandwidth with pointless spam.
> 
> Your behavior is buffoonish.



We have aimlessly wandered down tedious streets beneath a grieving sky—
Without hope, without respite, without another single sign
of life appearing anywhere in sight,​Except a gang of looney crickets dancing jigs throughout the night.

Oh, I wish the mermaids would sing to me.
I wish the mermaids would sing. . . .


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you winning?
> 
> A thread that promotes a fraud, a thread in which you can’t respond to challenges to your appeals to supernaturalism and you waste time and bandwidth with pointless spam.
> 
> Your behavior is buffoonish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have aimlessly wandered down tedious streets beneath a grieving sky—
> Without hope, without respite, without another single sign
> of life appearing anywhere in sight,​Except a gang of looney crickets dancing jigs throughout the night.
> 
> Oh, I wish the mermaids would sing to me.
> I wish the mermaids would sing. . . .
Click to expand...

I can only give you a 3/10 for mindless spam, juvenile behavior and yet another failed attempt at your Benny Hinn impression. 

How about a little song and dance?


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> I can only give you a 3/10 for mindless spam, juvenile behavior and yet another failed attempt at your Benny Hinn impression.
> 
> How about a little song and dance?



Still no argument/proof of you religion naturalism, eh?

Still winning!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only give you a 3/10 for mindless spam, juvenile behavior and yet another failed attempt at your Benny Hinn impression.
> 
> How about a little song and dance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no argument/proof of you religion naturalism, eh?
> 
> Still winning!
Click to expand...

Naturalism is not a religion. 

Still no math that was claimed by the thread title, eh? 

Just another of your screeching, hair-on-fire, Jimmy Swaggert style frauds.

I want you to spam the thread with more of your creepy poems. It's funny to watch religious extremists launch themselves into embarrassing, emotional tirades.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has always amazed me how people who profess to believe in God look at the world, obviously a work of God (should he exist), and and choose not to believe their own eyes because of their logic or theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how evodelusionists fail to grasp the fact that their interpretation of the empirical evidence is predicated on nothing more than their metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.
Click to expand...


You do not deny being a false prophet? ... shocking you should think yourself smarter than God ... you should spend less time hating on evolution and more time studying basic Christian doctrine ...


----------



## ReinyDays

Your comments on the math please ...


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Your comments on the math please ...



See video in the OP.  Then prove naturalism is true.

Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> You do not deny being a false prophet? ... shocking you should think yourself smarter than God ... you should spend less time hating on evolution and more time studying basic Christian doctrine ...



Do you deny being an apostate?

Winning!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Winning!


And again...

james bond ...are you getting jealous, yet? This guy is stealing your act.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> And again...
> 
> james bond ...are you getting jealous, yet? This guy is stealing your act.
Click to expand...


Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.

Anyway, I think our side is _winning_ in more ways than one.  For example, with _falsifiability_, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.

It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable .  It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal.  These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test. 

Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified.  Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins.  I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity.  If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world.  Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.

OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs.  If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states.  Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys.  We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth.  Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon.  What do you think they're going to come up with?  A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon?  Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> And again...
> 
> james bond ...are you getting jealous, yet? This guy is stealing your act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.
> 
> Anyway, I think our side is _winning_ in more ways than one.  For example, with _falsifiability_, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.
> 
> It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable .  It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal.  These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.
> 
> Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified.  Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins.  I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity.  If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world.  Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.
> 
> OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs.  If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states.  Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys.  We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth.  Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon.  What do you think they're going to come up with?  A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon?  Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> And again...
> 
> james bond ...are you getting jealous, yet? This guy is stealing your act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.
> 
> Anyway, I think our side is _winning_ in more ways than one.  For example, with _falsifiability_, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.
> 
> It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable .  It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal.  These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.
> 
> Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified.  Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins.  I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity.  If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world.  Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.
> 
> OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs.  If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states.  Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys.  We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth.  Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon.  What do you think they're going to come up with?  A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon?  Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

Why would a human wish to live with a dinosaur? What proof is there that man has lived with whales?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> And again...
> 
> james bond ...are you getting jealous, yet? This guy is stealing your act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.
> 
> Anyway, I think our side is _winning_ in more ways than one.  For example, with _falsifiability_, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.
> 
> It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable .  It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal.  These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.
> 
> Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified.  Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins.  I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity.  If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world.  Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.
> 
> OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs.  If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states.  Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys.  We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth.  Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon.  What do you think they're going to come up with?  A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon?  Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a human wish to live with a dinosaur? What proof is there that man has lived with whales?
Click to expand...

_Why_ humans would wish to live with dinosaurs was not the statement I responded to. 

Man has not lived with whales. That’s a conspiracy.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> See video in the OP.  Then prove naturalism is true.





Ringtone said:


> Do you deny being an apostate?



Please stick to the subject of the thread ... you claim to have a mathematical challenge to evolution and you have yet to state this challenge ... that makes you a loser ...

I prohibit myself such vain-glories ... it's unbecoming one of the faith ...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.



It's in the Bible, for one.  Soft tissue found in the fossils are another, i.e. evolution timeline is wrong.

Other evidence are pictorial representations carved into cave or canyon walls, brass or clay, and drawn into pottery.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> It's in the Bible, for one.  Soft tissue found in the fossils are another, i.e. evolution timeline is wrong.
> Other evidence are pictorial representations carved into cave or canyon walls, brass or clay, and drawn into pottery.



Bubba didn't finish Middle School because he can't read ...
No where in the Bible does it mention dinosaurs ... sheesh ... not once ... 
Another one who thinks they know God's will better than He does ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible, for one.  Soft tissue found in the fossils are another, i.e. evolution timeline is wrong.
> 
> Other evidence are pictorial representations carved into cave or canyon walls, brass or clay, and drawn into pottery.
Click to expand...

“It’s in the Bible”, is hardly a reason for anyone to accept such a statement.

So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.

If the evolution timeline is wrong, all the available evidence for dating of ancient fossil remains is wrong. Is that the conspiracy theory you’re floating?

“It’s in the Bible” vs. modern methods of research and discovery to include paleontology, chemistry, biology, etc. which identify a timeline far older than a global flood (that never occurred), a few thousand years ago. That’s your position? T-Rex was on the Ark along with all the other vertebrate dinosaurs? T-Rex was alive and stomping around just a few thousand years ago? 

Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible, for one.  Soft tissue found in the fossils are another, i.e. evolution timeline is wrong.
> Other evidence are pictorial representations carved into cave or canyon walls, brass or clay, and drawn into pottery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba didn't finish Middle School because he can't read ...
> No where in the Bible does it mention dinosaurs ... sheesh ... not once ...
> Another one who thinks they know God's will better than He does ...
Click to expand...


 This shows your ignorance as the word "dinosaur" did not exist until much later.  The Bible uses a different word.  Do you know what words?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible, for one.  Soft tissue found in the fossils are another, i.e. evolution timeline is wrong.
> 
> Other evidence are pictorial representations carved into cave or canyon walls, brass or clay, and drawn into pottery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “It’s in the Bible”, is hardly a reason for anyone to accept such a statement.
> 
> So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.
> 
> If the evolution timeline is wrong, all the available evidence for dating of ancient fossil remains is wrong. Is that the conspiracy theory you’re floating?
> 
> “It’s in the Bible” vs. modern methods of research and discovery to include paleontology, chemistry, biology, etc. which identify a timeline far older than a global flood (that never occurred), a few thousand years ago. That’s your position? T-Rex was on the Ark along with all the other vertebrate dinosaurs? T-Rex was alive and stomping around just a few thousand years ago?
> 
> Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what he is saying. Bond has no original material or thoughts on these matters. He is, for all practical purposes, a bot that regurgitates talking points from creation.com.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.



The "dinosaurs" on the Ark were thought to be smaller than a horse.  They were younger versions of the 3-story beasts you are thinking of and are usually depicted in articles.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "dinosaurs" on the Ark were thought to be smaller than a horse.  They were younger versions of the 3-story beasts you are thinking of and are usually depicted in articles.
Click to expand...

Oh. OK, that makes sense. So... T-Rex and the other dinosaurs grew into adulthood after Noah’s sea cruise? Noah only collected juvenile dinosaurs?

I’m curious about that dynamic of post-cruise physiology of people living to be 900 years old due to lower gravity and a different atmosphere on the earth just a few thousand years ago?

If dinosaurs grew into 3-story beasts post-cruise, why are fossil remains of dinosaurs so... you know... old? Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago? 

Why did they disappear?


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> The "dinosaurs" on the Ark were thought to be smaller than a horse.  They were younger versions of the 3-story beasts you are thinking of and are usually depicted in articles.


 Proverbs: ""The lion, which is mightiest among beasts and does not turn back before any;""

I guess they missed large dinosaurs who SHOOK the ground when they walked, and could just pluck up humans with one bite.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Actual infinities exist as concepts in minds only.


Shaman Ringtone has spoken!


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Proverbs: ""The lion, which is mightiest among beasts and does not turn back before any;""
> 
> I guess they missed large dinosaurs who SHOOK the ground when they walked, and could just pluck up humans with one bite.
> 
> `



When did the lion come into existance?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proverbs: ""The lion, which is mightiest among beasts and does not turn back before any;""
> 
> I guess they missed large dinosaurs who SHOOK the ground when they walked, and could just pluck up humans with one bite.
> 
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the lion come into existance?
Click to expand...

It's not in the Bible?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "dinosaurs" on the Ark were thought to be smaller than a horse.  They were younger versions of the 3-story beasts you are thinking of and are usually depicted in articles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh. OK, that makes sense. So... T-Rex and the other dinosaurs grew into adulthood after Noah’s sea cruise? Noah only collected juvenile dinosaurs?
> 
> I’m curious about that dynamic of post-cruise physiology of people living to be 900 years old due to lower gravity and a different atmosphere on the earth just a few thousand years ago?
> 
> If dinosaurs grew into 3-story beasts post-cruise, why are fossil remains of dinosaurs so... you know... old? Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?
> 
> Why did they disappear?
Click to expand...


Noah didn't collect anything.  God sent the creatures to the ark.  To fit on the Ark, they were younger dinosaurs.

>>I’m curious about that dynamic of post-cruise physiology of people living to be 900 years old due to lower gravity and a different atmosphere on the earth just a few thousand years ago?<<

I'm going to skip this as it's not fair to the OP and his topic.

>>If dinosaurs grew into 3-story beasts post-cruise, why are fossil remains of dinosaurs so... you know... old? Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?<<

They're not old.  Only evos think they are millions of years old.

>>Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?<<

C'mon, you should know this.  Evos do not accept fossils out of range of their timelines (More evidence for them lying and being wrong).

>>Why did they disappear?<<

I don't think the Bible says.  They may have died to the asteroid impact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Evos do not accept fossils out of range of their timelines


You have none. None. You are a shameless liar to say otherwise.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "dinosaurs" on the Ark were thought to be smaller than a horse.  They were younger versions of the 3-story beasts you are thinking of and are usually depicted in articles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh. OK, that makes sense. So... T-Rex and the other dinosaurs grew into adulthood after Noah’s sea cruise? Noah only collected juvenile dinosaurs?
> 
> I’m curious about that dynamic of post-cruise physiology of people living to be 900 years old due to lower gravity and a different atmosphere on the earth just a few thousand years ago?
> 
> If dinosaurs grew into 3-story beasts post-cruise, why are fossil remains of dinosaurs so... you know... old? Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?
> 
> Why did they disappear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noah didn't collect anything.  God sent the creatures to the ark.  To fit on the Ark, they were younger dinosaurs.
> 
> >>I’m curious about that dynamic of post-cruise physiology of people living to be 900 years old due to lower gravity and a different atmosphere on the earth just a few thousand years ago?<<
> 
> I'm going to skip this as it's not fair to the OP and his topic.
> 
> >>If dinosaurs grew into 3-story beasts post-cruise, why are fossil remains of dinosaurs so... you know... old? Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?<<
> 
> They're not old.  Only evos think they are millions of years old.
> 
> >>Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?<<
> 
> C'mon, you should know this.  Evos do not accept fossils out of range of their timelines (More evidence for them lying and being wrong).
> 
> >>Why did they disappear?<<
> 
> I don't think the Bible says.  They may have died to the asteroid impact.
Click to expand...

The gods sent the creatures to the Ark? By magic or telepathy or something?

Younger dinosaurs being sent to the Ark means that the dinosaurs all growd' up into adult dinosaurs. I get it that your conspiracy theory is that evos are fooled by the ages of dinosaurs but I'm curious how evos have managed a worldwide conspiracy that includes all of the relevant science disciplines and the relevant teaching universities to become co-conspirators? Is it realistic to insist that there is a worldwide conspiracy of evos? 

How are religios's so certain in ''it says so in the bible'' when the bible says nothing about dinosaurs? How much different were gravity and the oxygen levels I the atmosphere a few thousand years ago to allow Men to live for 900 years?

The dinosaurs died from an asteroid impact? Did the impact kill only dinosaurs and no other forms of life?


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.
> 
> Anyway, I think our side is _winning_ in more ways than one.  For example, with _falsifiability_, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.
> 
> It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable .  It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal.  These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.
> 
> Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified.  Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins.  I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity.  If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world.  Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.
> 
> OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs.  If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states.  Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys.  We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth.  Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon.  What do you think they're going to come up with?  A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon?  Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?


Actually, James, you've got it backwards.  Potential infinities _do_ exist in nature beyond minds!  A potential infinity is a finite amount/number of something at any given instant in time or being tending toward infinity as the limit.

Actual infinities exist as concepts in minds only.  *∞* is a surreal number, denoting a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.  Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds at all!  God is not an actual infinite.  When we say that God is infinite, we mean that he is incomparably great, perfect, the quintessence of being, the greatest possible being in all of his attributes and ways.

Potential and actual infinities pertain to quantities, not qualities.

Further, the hypothesis of evodelusion, in and of itself, is arguably falsifiable, and aspects of the hypothesis have been falsified in the past to the effect that the hypothesis has been revised accordingly over time.  But it does not follow from this that evodelusion has been falsified.  Hollie is absolutely correct to point that out, yet continues to wrongly understand my observations.

The following is my position:

The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means.  That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism.  Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​​While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable.  I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​
The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development.  Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild.  Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.
> 
> Anyway, I think our side is _winning_ in more ways than one.  For example, with _falsifiability_, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.
> 
> It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable .  It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal.  These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.
> 
> Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified.  Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins.  I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity.  If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world.  Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.
> 
> OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs.  If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states.  Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys.  We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth.  Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon.  What do you think they're going to come up with?  A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon?  Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, James, you've got it backwards.  Potential infinities _do_ exist in nature beyond minds!  A potential infinity is a finite amount/number of something at any given instant in time or being tending toward infinity as the limit.
> 
> Actual infinities exist as concepts in minds only.  *∞* is a surreal number, denoting a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.  Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds at all!  God is not an actual infinite.  When we say that God is infinite, we mean that he is incomparably great, perfect, the quintessence of being, the greatest possible being in all of his attributes and ways.
> 
> Potential and actual infinities pertain to quantities, not qualities.
> 
> Further, the hypothesis of evodelusion, in and of itself, is arguably falsifiable, and aspects of the hypothesis have been falsified in the past to the effect that the hypothesis has been revised accordingly over time.  But it does not follow from this that evodelusion has been falsified.  Hollie is absolutely correct to point that out, yet continues to wrongly understand my observations.
> 
> The following is my position:
> 
> The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means.  That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism.  Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​​While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable.  I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​
> The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development.  Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild.  Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz. All that pompous, AIG inspired blathering is why you still can't get science right.

It is not difficult to understand how the religious extremists / science illiterate could make such a claim about mutations. In part, they're science illiterate, obviously, and in part, they have an agenda to press so they lie and attempt to deceive. Any organism altered by mutations can be ''unaltered'' by mutations. Some mutations add ''information'' to a genome; some remove information. ID'iot Creationers dishonestly and deceptively try and pass off their fraudulent claims by leaving the term "information" as undefined, as a moving goal post or impossibly vague. By any rational definition, increases in ''information'' have been observed to produce evolutionary change. We have observed the evolutionary processes of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, unique genetic material and even unique, genetically-regulated abilities. 

Gene duplication is a mechanism that is common for adding ''information'' in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has shown several instances in which this is apparently the origin of some proteins. If the above does not qualify as ''information'', then we see more confirmation that ID'iot creationers have nothing relevant to contribute to matters concerning science. .


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Gee whiz. All that pompous, AIG inspired blathering is why you still can't get science right.
> 
> It is not difficult to understand how the religious extremists / science illiterate could make such a claim about mutations. In part, they're science illiterate, obviously, and in part, they have an agenda to press so they lie and attempt to deceive. Any organism altered by mutations can be ''unaltered'' by mutations. Some mutations add ''information'' to a genome; some remove information. ID'iot Creationers dishonestly and deceptively try and pass off their fraudulent claims by leaving the term "information" as undefined, as a moving goal post or impossibly vague. By any rational definition, increases in ''information'' have been observed to produce evolutionary change. We have observed the evolutionary processes of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, unique genetic material and even unique, genetically-regulated abilities.
> 
> Gene duplication is a mechanism that is common for adding ''information'' in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has shown several instances in which this is apparently the origin of some proteins. If the above does not qualify as ''information'', then we see more confirmation that ID'iot creationers have nothing relevant to contribute to matters concerning science. .



Gee whiz, all that pompous blathersmack of little knowledge. 

Actually, gene duplication and the inherent point mutations are degenerative in terms of information, wherein no new or different function is acquired relative to the original.  Rather than resulting in neofunctionalization (new functions), the result of gene duplication is subfunctionalization (the division of the original functions among two or more genes).  

Collectively, the point mutations constitute a neutral mechanism by which duplicate genes are sometimes preserved.  Accumulatively, this entails a mutational loss of function and information in each, albeit, in such a way that complements the other copy and sometimes adaptively optimizes the function of the original, which is integrated into a more complex genetic pathway.  The process is called duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC).  Finally, the more complex pathways rarely optimize the function of the singular ancestor in any significant way and tend to be selected out via genetic drift.

Now drop and give me 50, and make it snappy!

Still winning!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. All that pompous, AIG inspired blathering is why you still can't get science right.
> 
> It is not difficult to understand how the religious extremists / science illiterate could make such a claim about mutations. In part, they're science illiterate, obviously, and in part, they have an agenda to press so they lie and attempt to deceive. Any organism altered by mutations can be ''unaltered'' by mutations. Some mutations add ''information'' to a genome; some remove information. ID'iot Creationers dishonestly and deceptively try and pass off their fraudulent claims by leaving the term "information" as undefined, as a moving goal post or impossibly vague. By any rational definition, increases in ''information'' have been observed to produce evolutionary change. We have observed the evolutionary processes of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, unique genetic material and even unique, genetically-regulated abilities.
> 
> Gene duplication is a mechanism that is common for adding ''information'' in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has shown several instances in which this is apparently the origin of some proteins. If the above does not qualify as ''information'', then we see more confirmation that ID'iot creationers have nothing relevant to contribute to matters concerning science. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, all that pompous blathersmack of little knowledge.
> 
> Actually, gene duplication and the inherent point mutations are degenerative in terms of information, wherein no new or different function is acquired relative to the original.  Rather than resulting in neofunctionalization (new functions), the result of gene duplication is subfunctionalization (the division of the original functions among two or more genes).
> 
> Collectively, the point mutations constitute a neutral mechanism by which duplicate genes are sometimes preserved.  Accumulatively, this entails a mutational loss of function and information in each, albeit, in such a way that complements the other copy and sometimes adaptively optimizes the function of the original, which is integrated into a more complex genetic pathway.  The process is called duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC).  Finally, the more complex pathways rarely optimize the function of the singular ancestor in any significant way and tend to be selected out via genetic drift.
> 
> Now drop and give me 50, and make it snappy!
> 
> Still winning!
Click to expand...

Gee whiz, just more of that pompous blathering of little knowledge. Once again, you play the "information" weasel stolen from your fundie creation ministries while never being able to define what "information" actually means. 


Force, A., M. Lynch, F.B. Pickett, A. Amores, Y.-L. Yan, and J. Postlethwait. The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations. Genetics 151:1531-1545. 1999.

Gene duplication is commonly given as the explanation for the increase in complexity via the acquisition of new functions. This paper addresses the standard scenario of duplication followed by either an adaptive mutation leading to the preservation of both genes or followed by degeneration of one of the copies. Since detrimental mutations are more likely than benificial mutations, the classical model predict that one of the duplicated genes will become a psuedogene. Actual data seems to indicate that the number of functional copies is larger than expected from the classical model and the authors present an interesting alternative. The alternative explains duplicate gene preservation by the fixation of a degenerative mutation rather than a more rare benificial mutations. The authors also present data from the Zebrafish consistent with this new model.

ABSTRACT The origin of organismal complexity is generally thought to be tightly coupled to the evolution of new gene functions arising subsequent to gene duplication. Under the classical model for the evolution of duplicate genes, one member of the duplicated pair usually degenerates within a few million years by accumulating deleterious mutations, while the other duplicate retains the original function. This model further predicts that on rare occasions, one duplicate may acquire a new adaptive function, resulting in the preservation of both members of the pair, one with the new function and the other retaining the old. However, empirical data suggest that a much greater proportion of gene duplicates is preserved than predicted by the classical model. Here we present a new conceptual framework for understanding the evolution of duplicate genes that may help explain this conundrum. Focusing on the regulatory complexity of eukaryotic genes, we show how complementary degenerative mutations in different regulatory elements of duplicated genes can facilitate the preservation of both duplicates, thereby increasing long-term opportunities for the evolution of new gene functions. The duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model predicts that (1) degenerative mutations in regulatory elements can increase rather than reduce the probability of duplicate gene preservtion and (2) the usual mechanism of duplicate gene preservation is the partitioning of ancestral functions rather than the evolution of new functions. We present several examples (including analysis of a new engrailed gene in zebrafish) that appear to be consistent with the DDC model, and we suggest several analytical and experimental approaches for determining whether the complementary loss of gene subfunctions or the acquisition of novel functions are likely to be the primary mechanisms for the preservation of gene duplicates. 




Kindly stick to your silly poetry. All that pompous blathering affords you is the luxury of not having to defend a science position.


You can't help but lose. 

_Bullfrogs croaking_


----------



## Hollie

*Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution*

Surprising no one, now 7 pages into a thread babbling about math and challenges to the Theory of Evolution and... wait for it... here it comes... No Math.

A fraud.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos do not accept fossils out of range of their timelines
> 
> 
> 
> You have none. None. You are a shameless liar to say otherwise.
Click to expand...


smh.  I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline -- Bible Timeline.


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.
> 
> Anyway, I think our side is _winning_ in more ways than one.  For example, with _falsifiability_, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.
> 
> It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable .  It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal.  These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.
> 
> Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified.  Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins.  I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity.  If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world.  Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.
> 
> OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs.  If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states.  Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys.  We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth.  Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon.  What do you think they're going to come up with?  A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon?  Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, James, you've got it backwards.  Potential infinities _do_ exist in nature beyond minds!  A potential infinity is a finite amount/number of something at any given instant in time or being tending toward infinity as the limit.
> 
> Actual infinities exist as concepts in minds only.  *∞* is a surreal number, denoting a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.  Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds at all!  God is not an actual infinite.  When we say that God is infinite, we mean that he is incomparably great, perfect, the quintessence of being, the greatest possible being in all of his attributes and ways.
> 
> Potential and actual infinities pertain to quantities, not qualities.
> 
> Further, the hypothesis of evodelusion, in and of itself, is arguably falsifiable, and aspects of the hypothesis have been falsified in the past to the effect that the hypothesis has been revised accordingly over time.  But it does not follow from this that evodelusion has been falsified.  Hollie is absolutely correct to point that out, yet continues to wrongly understand my observations.
> 
> The following is my position:
> 
> The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means.  That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism.  Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​​While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable.  I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​
> The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development.  Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild.  Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.
Click to expand...


I have it right.  It is the atheists and their scientists who believe in potential infinities as actual infinities in the natural world.  They do not understand potential infinities and actual infinities.  Actual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world.  It is potential infinities that exist in the natural world.  For example, we can have a set of counting numbers.  Cosmologists may disagree, but the universe has to be bounded or else we can have an infinite past and other crazy things.  Scientists believed in an infinite universe before the big bang theory and it was disproven.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline


I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> *Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution*
> 
> Surprising no one, now 7 pages into a thread babbling about math and challenges to the Theory of Evolution and... wait for it... here it comes... No Math.
> 
> A fraud.



You can't disprove it, so it is not a fraud.  While evolution and its common ancestor has been disproven many times.

The math proof is explained here.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution*
> 
> Surprising no one, now 7 pages into a thread babbling about math and challenges to the Theory of Evolution and... wait for it... here it comes... No Math.
> 
> A fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't disprove it, so it is not a fraud.  While evolution and its common ancestor has been disproven many times.
> 
> The math proof is explained here.
Click to expand...

I have disproved the thread claim. Prove I haven’t.

Evolution and common descent are among the best supported theories in science. Your silly conspiracy theories have never been taken seriously.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution*
> 
> Surprising no one, now 7 pages into a thread babbling about math and challenges to the Theory of Evolution and... wait for it... here it comes... No Math.
> 
> A fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't disprove it, so it is not a fraud.  While evolution and its common ancestor has been disproven many times.
> 
> The math proof is explained here.
Click to expand...

You’re impressed by YouTube videos with some knucklehead making a video in his basement.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline
> 
> 
> 
> I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.
Click to expand...


Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline.  What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline
> 
> 
> 
> I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline.  What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?
Click to expand...

Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.

You need some new Bibles.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't disprove it, so it is not a fraud.  While evolution and its common ancestor has been disproven many times.
> The math proof is explained here.
Click to expand...


The mathematical proof hasn't been submitted, thus the proof becomes a lie of omission ... I agree there's no money being transacted, so technically it's not a fraud, just a lie ...

Where is your disproof of common descent? ...

The video is just a philosophical statement ... and is mistaken ... the claims apply to vector spaces well enough but outside this type of grouping things aren't quite as absolute as the video assumes ... for example, 1 + 1 = 2 is only true with our definition of addition, change the definition and we come up with a different answer ...


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline.  What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?



You haven't done the math ... just how hard is it to add up the numbers in the Bible? ... Budda didn't finish Middle School ...

This video gives the date at around 4185 BC for the creation ... long after the Bronze Age ... or are you saying God is a lair? ...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline
> 
> 
> 
> I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline.  What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.
> 
> You need some new Bibles.
Click to expand...


Why don't you, Fort Fun Indiana, or ReinyDays answer my question?  The evolution timeline is fake.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Why don't you answer my question?  The evolution timeline is fake.



I did answer ... it's your Biblical timeline that's wrong ... it's simple addition, did you even make it through Grammar School? ...

The evolution timeline starts with carbon-dating ... do you understand how carbon-dating works? ... oh wait, you don't believe in carbon, my mistake ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline.


False. We have remnants of civilizations that predate the creation myth in the Bible's timeline. 

Bond, do you ever get tired of running headfirst into brick walls? Literally every time you make a claim, it is false. Every time.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline
> 
> 
> 
> I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline.  What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.
> 
> You need some new Bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you, Fort Fun Indiana, or ReinyDays answer my question?  The evolution timeline is fake.
Click to expand...

Your “... because I say so”, comments are of little consequence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline
> 
> 
> 
> I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline.  What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.
> 
> You need some new Bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you, Fort Fun Indiana, or ReinyDays answer my question?  The evolution timeline is fake.
Click to expand...

It isnt. You are wrong. Your question is stupid.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline
> 
> 
> 
> I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline.  What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.
> 
> You need some new Bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you, Fort Fun Indiana, or ReinyDays answer my question?  The evolution timeline is fake.
Click to expand...

An oldie but a goodie:









						Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World
					

Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.




					www.theonion.com
				




*"I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."

"Everything is here already," the pictograph continues. "We do not need more stars."

*


----------



## james bond

I'm not claiming a Bible Timeline a win yet, but we have established the evolution timeline is a fake and does not reflect history.  Otherwise, you would be all over me with the history


----------



## james bond

Here is the WINNING shot.

From a practical viewpoint, the Bible timeline on which most scholars agree starts with Abram, renamed “Abraham” by God  in the year 2166 BC (Genesis 17:4-6). Prior to that, we have the beginning in Genesis contains a rich history of creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, extensive genealogies, stories of human travails leading up to Noah, and the Great Flood (date unknown), and much more. I don't expect you to believe that as we do not know the time frame.

Don't Fort Fun Indiana, Hollie, and ReinyDays ever wish they took the WINNING shot with evolution ?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline
> 
> 
> 
> I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline.  What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.
> 
> You need some new Bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you, Fort Fun Indiana, or ReinyDays answer my question?  The evolution timeline is fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An oldie but a goodie:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World
> 
> 
> Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theonion.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."
> 
> "Everything is here already," the pictograph continues. "We do not need more stars."
> 
> *
Click to expand...


The Onion is a satirical website.  It reflects your evolution timeline which no one has ever seen.  It's more potential history and timeline that has not been proven in actual history like the Bible Timeline.  See how evolution is NOT A FACT and is a LIE if no one has ever seen it?


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> . . . Force, A., M. Lynch, F.B. Pickett, A. Amores, Y.-L. Yan, and J. Postlethwait. The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations. Genetics 151:1531-1545. 1999.
> 
> Gene duplication is commonly given as the explanation for the increase in complexity via the acquisition of new functions. This paper addresses the standard scenario of duplication followed by either an adaptive mutation leading to the preservation of both genes or followed by degeneration of one of the copies. Since detrimental mutations are more likely than benificial mutations, the classical model predict that one of the duplicated genes will become a psuedogene. Actual data seems to indicate that the number of functional copies is larger than expected from the classical model and the authors present an interesting alternative. The alternative explains duplicate gene preservation by the fixation of a degenerative mutation rather than a more rare benificial mutations. The authors also present data from the Zebrafish consistent with this new model.
> 
> ABSTRACT The origin of organismal complexity is generally thought to be tightly coupled to the evolution of new gene functions arising subsequent to gene duplication. Under the classical model for the evolution of duplicate genes, one member of the duplicated pair usually degenerates within a few million years by accumulating deleterious mutations, while the other duplicate retains the original function. This model further predicts that on rare occasions, one duplicate may acquire a new adaptive function, resulting in the preservation of both members of the pair, one with the new function and the other retaining the old. However, empirical data suggest that a much greater proportion of gene duplicates is preserved than predicted by the classical model. Here we present a new conceptual framework for understanding the evolution of duplicate genes that may help explain this conundrum. Focusing on the regulatory complexity of eukaryotic genes, we show how complementary degenerative mutations in different regulatory elements of duplicated genes can facilitate the preservation of both duplicates, thereby increasing long-term opportunities for the evolution of new gene functions. The duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model predicts that (1) degenerative mutations in regulatory elements can increase rather than reduce the probability of duplicate gene preservtion and (2) the usual mechanism of duplicate gene preservation is the partitioning of ancestral functions rather than the evolution of new functions. We present several examples (including analysis of a new engrailed gene in zebrafish) that appear to be consistent with the DDC model, and we suggest several analytical and experimental approaches for determining whether the complementary loss of gene subfunctions or the acquisition of novel functions are likely to be the primary mechanisms for the preservation of gene duplicates.




Hilarious!  Please explain how this refutes my observations regarding the  DDC model and the subsequent preservation of the duplicate genes in the mutationally derived  degenerative-complementary pathways that optimize the functions of the original gene.  Please do so in your own words, as one who has first-hand knowledge and understanding of the matter; you know, like I did.

Thanks.

P.S.  I suggest you read your citation very carefully again before you proceed.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> g transacted, so technically it's not a fraud, just a lie ...
> 
> Where is your disproof of common descent? ...
> 
> The video is just a philosophical statement ... and is mistaken ... the claims apply to vector spaces well enough but outside this type of grouping things aren't quite as absolute as the video assumes ... for example, 1 + 1 = 2 is only true with our definition of addition, change the definition and we come up with a different answer ...



The mathematics of population genetics is discussed in the video.  Watch the video!  Then let's have your refutation of their observations in your own words.

Thanks.

Still winning!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't disprove it, so it is not a fraud.  While evolution and its common ancestor has been disproven many times.
> The math proof is explained here.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mathematical proof hasn't been submitted, thus the proof becomes a lie of omission ... I agree there's no money being transacted, so technically it's not a fraud, just a lie ...
> 
> Where is your disproof of common descent? ...
> 
> The video is just a philosophical statement ... and is mistaken ... the claims apply to vector spaces well enough but outside this type of grouping things aren't quite as absolute as the video assumes ... for example, 1 + 1 = 2 is only true with our definition of addition, change the definition and we come up with a different answer ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mathematics of population genetics is discussed in the video.  Watch the video!
Click to expand...

Why? It's not as if you ever watched it.


----------



## there4eyeM

All this just to arrive at the point of saying, "We don't know definitively".  Yet, so many must pin a name on the process, because then we would have some control over it.
Fortunately, some of us are content to view the wonders of life and the universe and accept that no comprehensive answer satisfactory to all is possible. We laugh at your frustration, feeling none ourselves. We are quite happy to accept, with gratitude, an existence that is inexplicable, painful and pleasurable, frustrating to our limited egos and inexhaustible in our imaginings.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> I have it right.  It is the atheists and their scientists who believe in potential infinities as actual infinities in the natural world.  They do not understand potential infinities and actual infinities.  Actual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world.  It is potential infinities that exist in the natural world.  For example, we can have a set of counting numbers.  Cosmologists may disagree, but the universe has to be bounded or else we can have an infinite past and other crazy things.  Scientists believed in an infinite universe before the big bang theory and it was disproven.


 
No, James, you don't have it right, and I don't need you to explain to me  what potential and actual infinities are, and, subsequently, what the distinction between potential and actual infinities. is.  I grasp these thing.  What you don't grasp is what an actual infinite is.

You keep saying that "[a]ctual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world."  

False!  The supernatural world has nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

They exist in both the natural and supernatural world, albeit, as mathematical concepts in minds ONLY.  They conceptually exist in the minds of man, angels and God.  An actual infinite is the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.   The place where actual infinities do not have existentiality is outside of minds.  Period.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . Force, A., M. Lynch, F.B. Pickett, A. Amores, Y.-L. Yan, and J. Postlethwait. The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations. Genetics 151:1531-1545. 1999.
> 
> Gene duplication is commonly given as the explanation for the increase in complexity via the acquisition of new functions. This paper addresses the standard scenario of duplication followed by either an adaptive mutation leading to the preservation of both genes or followed by degeneration of one of the copies. Since detrimental mutations are more likely than benificial mutations, the classical model predict that one of the duplicated genes will become a psuedogene. Actual data seems to indicate that the number of functional copies is larger than expected from the classical model and the authors present an interesting alternative. The alternative explains duplicate gene preservation by the fixation of a degenerative mutation rather than a more rare benificial mutations. The authors also present data from the Zebrafish consistent with this new model.
> 
> ABSTRACT The origin of organismal complexity is generally thought to be tightly coupled to the evolution of new gene functions arising subsequent to gene duplication. Under the classical model for the evolution of duplicate genes, one member of the duplicated pair usually degenerates within a few million years by accumulating deleterious mutations, while the other duplicate retains the original function. This model further predicts that on rare occasions, one duplicate may acquire a new adaptive function, resulting in the preservation of both members of the pair, one with the new function and the other retaining the old. However, empirical data suggest that a much greater proportion of gene duplicates is preserved than predicted by the classical model. Here we present a new conceptual framework for understanding the evolution of duplicate genes that may help explain this conundrum. Focusing on the regulatory complexity of eukaryotic genes, we show how complementary degenerative mutations in different regulatory elements of duplicated genes can facilitate the preservation of both duplicates, thereby increasing long-term opportunities for the evolution of new gene functions. The duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model predicts that (1) degenerative mutations in regulatory elements can increase rather than reduce the probability of duplicate gene preservtion and (2) the usual mechanism of duplicate gene preservation is the partitioning of ancestral functions rather than the evolution of new functions. We present several examples (including analysis of a new engrailed gene in zebrafish) that appear to be consistent with the DDC model, and we suggest several analytical and experimental approaches for determining whether the complementary loss of gene subfunctions or the acquisition of novel functions are likely to be the primary mechanisms for the preservation of gene duplicates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious!  Please explain how this refutes my observations regarding the  DDC model and the subsequent preservation of the duplicate genes in the mutationally derived  degenerative-complementary pathways that optimize the functions of the original gene.  Please do so in your own words, as one who has first-hand knowledge and understanding of the matter; you know, like I did.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> P.S.  I suggest you read your citation very carefully again before you proceed.
Click to expand...


Fundies are a total hoot. I suggest you carefully read what was provided to you. If you have additional questions, you might want to consider learning some basic biology so you’re prepared to ask legitimate questions.


----------



## Ringtone

there4eyeM said:


> All this just to arrive at the point of saying, "We don't know definitively".  Yet, so many must pin a name on the process, because then we would have some control over it.
> Fortunately, some of us are content to view the wonders of life and the universe and accept that no comprehensive answer satisfactory to all is possible. We laugh at your frustration, feeling none ourselves. We are quite happy to accept, with gratitude, an existence that is inexplicable, painful and pleasurable, frustrating to our limited egos and inexhaustible in our imaginings.



Your observation is not profound.  It's fallacious, arrogant and obtuse.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Fundies are a total hoot. I suggest you carefully read what was provided to you. If you have additional questions, you might want to consider learning some basic biology so you’re prepared to ask legitimate questions.



Well, since you cannot explain your implied refutation in your own words. . . .

*Have you ever stood in crowded halls and listened to the footfalls*
*that approach you and pass you and leave you stranded?*​*Have you ever sensed the faint and weightless drift beyond the temporal stream?
Did you touch it? 
Did you taste it? 
Were you frightened?
Have you ever stood in the pouring rain?
Or felt a Dread so acute that you believed yourself to be teetering*
*on the very edge of the blackest hole in your brain?*​*Did you fall?
Have you ever walked on a rainbow? 
Or felt the touch of a child’s hand—frail and tiny—*
*wrap itself around your smallest finger?*​*Did the air hold its breath?
Did time stop?
Did you stop?
I should have been a monstrous insect, with fetid breath,*
*hanging on your bedroom wall.*​


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Here is the WINNING shot.
> 
> From a practical viewpoint, the Bible timeline on which most scholars agree starts with Abram, renamed “Abraham” by God  in the year 2166 BC (Genesis 17:4-6). Prior to that, we have the beginning in Genesis contains a rich history of creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, extensive genealogies, stories of human travails leading up to Noah, and the Great Flood (date unknown), and much more. I don't expect you to believe that as we do not know the time frame.
> 
> Don't Fort Fun Indiana, Hollie, and ReinyDays ever wish they took the WINNING shot with evolution ?


Using gotquestions.org as a source is hardly a reason anyone other than you should accept it.

The Genesis fable is hardly a “rich history of creation”. It’s a couple of chapters written by unknown author(s), containing some obvious absurdities.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundies are a total hoot. I suggest you carefully read what was provided to you. If you have additional questions, you might want to consider learning some basic biology so you’re prepared to ask legitimate questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you cannot explain your implied refutation in your own words. . . .
> 
> *Have you ever stood in crowded halls and listened to the footfalls*
> *that approach you and pass you and leave you stranded?*​*Have you ever sensed the faint and weightless drift beyond the temporal stream?
> Did you touch it?
> Did you taste it?
> Were you frightened?
> Have you ever stood in the pouring rain?
> Or felt a Dread so acute that you believed yourself to be teetering*
> *on the very edge of the blackest hole in your brain?*​*Did you fall?
> Have you ever walked on a rainbow?
> Or felt the touch of a child’s hand—frail and tiny—*
> *wrap itself around your smallest finger?*​*Did the air hold its breath?
> Did time stop?
> Did you stop?
> I should have been a monstrous insect, with fetid breath,*
> *hanging on your bedroom wall.*​
Click to expand...


Well, since you’re unable, as usual, to support your specious claims, you are forced to retreat to your usual tactic of spamming threads with off topic nonsense.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.


I thought it was pretty darn funny that the charlatans at the Disco’tute were unable to produce a biologist within a discussion of biological evolution.

Outside of fundamentalist religious ministries and repositories for religious cranks such as the Disco’tute, evolutionary biologists do research and publish in peer reviewed journals addressing not just questions related to matters of evolutionary science, but also to matters such as development and testing of computational tools that are used to study evolutionary biology.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Well, since you’re unable, as usual, to support your specious claims, you are forced to retreat to your usual tactic of spamming threads with off topic nonsense.



Liar.  You implied your copy-and-paste refutes my observations.  It does not.  You really don't have any first-hand knowledge or understanding, do you?

Still winning!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you’re unable, as usual, to support your specious claims, you are forced to retreat to your usual tactic of spamming threads with off topic nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  You implied your copy-and-paste refutes my observations.  It does not.  You really don't have any first-hand knowledge or understanding, do you?
> 
> Still winning!
Click to expand...

I can’t help but notice you’re a sore loser. Suggesting your silly poetry addresses anything but your lack of training and knowledge in the sciences advises...

You’re still losing!


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> I can’t help but notice you’re a sore loser. Suggesting your silly poetry addresses anything but your lack of training and knowledge in the sciences advises...
> 
> You’re still losing!



*I have seen the blood that flows from Private altars,
That glistens on wasted flesh and bone.
I have seen the tiny severed Fingers—*
*pink, adrift in murky, black waters.*​*In all my feverish dreams I hear their muted screams,
And in their eyes, those bewildered eyes turned on callous faces,
I see a plea . . . and the wounded face of God.
*
*“It is our Right!” they rant. “Our Right!”*​*Yes,” I whisper, small and foolish,*​*“But the Babies, the little Babies.”*​


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t help but notice you’re a sore loser. Suggesting your silly poetry addresses anything but your lack of training and knowledge in the sciences advises...
> 
> You’re still losing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have seen the blood that flows from Private altars,
> That glistens on wasted flesh and bone.
> I have seen the tiny severed Fingers—*
> *pink, adrift in murky, black waters.*​*In all my feverish dreams I hear their muted screams,
> And in their eyes, those bewildered eyes turned on callous faces,
> I see a plea . . . and the wounded face of God.*
> 
> *“It is our Right!” they rant. “Our Right!”*​*Yes,” I whisper, small and foolish,*​*“But the Babies, the little Babies.”*​
Click to expand...



I thought it was pretty darn funny that the charlatans at the Disco’tute were unable to produce a biologist within a discussion of biological evolution.

Outside of fundamentalist religious ministries and repositories for religious cranks such as the Disco’tute, evolutionary biologists do research and publish in peer reviewed journals addressing not just questions related to matters of evolutionary science, but also to matters such as development and testing of computational tools that are used to study evolutionary biology.

_Winning!_


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> The mathematics of population genetics is discussed in the video.  Watch the video!  Then let's have your refutation of their observations in your own words.
> Thanks.
> Still winning!



I posted the commonly accepted derivation ... or at least the beginning ... if you can't address the facts stated in that sceintific paper then you don't belong in your own thread ... video schmideo, the guests are philosopers, not mathmeticians ...

The peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper refutes all the videos from ... _YouTube_ ... (ha ha ha ha ha ha) ... I'd admit, it takes a special kind to throw a YouTube video up against 100 years of scientific understanding ... just special ...


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> I posted the commonly accepted derivation ... or at least the beginning ... if you can't address the facts stated in that sceintific paper then you don't belong in your own thread ... video schmideo, the guests are philosopers, not mathmeticians ...
> 
> The peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper refutes all the videos from ... _YouTube_ ... (ha ha ha ha ha ha) ... I'd admit, it takes a special kind to throw a YouTube video up against 100 years of scientific understanding ... just special ...




How does it do that.  Please explain in your own words.  Thanks.

In the meantime, PiltDown Man and the  Archaeoraptor.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the commonly accepted derivation ... or at least the beginning ... if you can't address the facts stated in that sceintific paper then you don't belong in your own thread ... video schmideo, the guests are philosopers, not mathmeticians ...
> 
> The peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper refutes all the videos from ... _YouTube_ ... (ha ha ha ha ha ha) ... I'd admit, it takes a special kind to throw a YouTube video up against 100 years of scientific understanding ... just special ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it do that.  Please explain in your own words.  Thanks.
> 
> In the meantime, PiltDown Man and the  Archaeoraptor.
Click to expand...

You idiot...you just gave two examples of the strength of the body of science, as it is what ultimately exposed the fakery. Damn you are ignorant. You know less than nothing about evolution or any related topic.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper refutes all the videos from ... _YouTube_ ... (ha ha ha ha ha ha) ... I'd admit, it takes a special kind to throw a YouTube video up against 100 years of scientific understanding ... just special ...
> 
> 
> 
> How does it do that.  Please explain in your own words.  Thanks.
Click to expand...


Do you understand the coefficient of selection and how it is used in equation 1.0? ... I'm not going to waste my time on you explaining simple high school math ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper refutes all the videos from ... _YouTube_ ... (ha ha ha ha ha ha) ... I'd admit, it takes a special kind to throw a YouTube video up against 100 years of scientific understanding ... just special ...
> 
> 
> 
> How does it do that.  Please explain in your own words.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand the coefficient of selection and how it is used in equation 1.0? ... I'm not going to waste my time on you explaining simple high school math ...
Click to expand...

So long as k is small the time taken for any given change in the proportions varies inversely as k?


----------



## ding

We know Darwin got transference wrong.  So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species.  But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Your “... because I say so”, comments are of little consequence.



It's not what I say, but what God said.  He gave us the Bible Timeline.

So, your evolution timeline is a made up time line by the atheist scientists with the powers that be starting from Darwin, Lyell, and Hutton (two atheists and an ag).  I wouldn't trust it because it was created by humans with Satan behind it.

Evolution timeline -- Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia.

"because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen." Romans 1:25

10 Scientific Facts Disproving Evolution








						10 Scientific Facts Disproving Evolution
					






					www.christianevidence.net


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have it right.  It is the atheists and their scientists who believe in potential infinities as actual infinities in the natural world.  They do not understand potential infinities and actual infinities.  Actual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world.  It is potential infinities that exist in the natural world.  For example, we can have a set of counting numbers.  Cosmologists may disagree, but the universe has to be bounded or else we can have an infinite past and other crazy things.  Scientists believed in an infinite universe before the big bang theory and it was disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, James, you don't have it right, and I don't need you to explain to me  what potential and actual infinities are, and, subsequently, what the distinction between potential and actual infinities. is.  I grasp these thing.  What you don't grasp is what an actual infinite is.
> 
> You keep saying that "[a]ctual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world."
> 
> False!  The supernatural world has nothing to do with the price of beans in China.
> 
> They exist in both the natural and supernatural world, albeit, as mathematical concepts in minds ONLY.  They conceptually exist in the minds of man, angels and God.  An actual infinite is the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.   The place where actual infinities do not have existentiality is outside of minds.  Period.
Click to expand...


You're on your own and getting beaten up in this thread.

Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.

So did you lose?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the WINNING shot.
> 
> From a practical viewpoint, the Bible timeline on which most scholars agree starts with Abram, renamed “Abraham” by God  in the year 2166 BC (Genesis 17:4-6). Prior to that, we have the beginning in Genesis contains a rich history of creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, extensive genealogies, stories of human travails leading up to Noah, and the Great Flood (date unknown), and much more. I don't expect you to believe that as we do not know the time frame.
> 
> Don't Fort Fun Indiana, Hollie, and ReinyDays ever wish they took the WINNING shot with evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> Using gotquestions.org as a source is hardly a reason anyone other than you should accept it.
> 
> The Genesis fable is hardly a “rich history of creation”. It’s a couple of chapters written by unknown author(s), containing some obvious absurdities.
Click to expand...


Genesis is the truth and not a fable.  It is evolution that is a fable.  Nothing has been observed and science does not back it up.  Genesis is the best explanation for why the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  It is explained in the pre-Bible Timeline and science backs it up.  We also have Answers in Genesis which explains how science backs up the Bible as another source.

The swan neck experiment shows that life won't be found below the surface of Mars because of no abiogenesis.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your “... because I say so”, comments are of little consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not what I say, but what God said.  He gave us the Bible Timeline.
> 
> So, your evolution timeline is a made up time line by the atheist scientists with the powers that be starting from Darwin, Lyell, and Hutton (two atheists and an ag).  I wouldn't trust it because it was created by humans with Satan behind it.
> 
> Evolution timeline -- Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia.
> 
> "because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen." Romans 1:25
> 
> 10 Scientific Facts Disproving Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Scientific Facts Disproving Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.christianevidence.net
Click to expand...


“What the gods said” is not an argument you want to make. None of the gods said anything in any of the Bibles. Shrubbery spontaneously bursting into flames aside, none of the gods provided direct dictation in the Bibles so I’m curious why you have some illusion about gods (and snakes), conversing with humans.  

Your conspiracy theory about Satan being behind the evilutionist atheist timeline of biological evilution is one not uncommon for religious extremists. The problem with such a conspiracy theory is that absent any support for such an entity as a “Satan” and absent any evidence that refutes the evolutionary timeline, your conspiracy theory is better described as a pathology.

It’s a common tactic of ID’iot creation’istas to use “Christian evidence” in an attempt to support their conspiracy theories. That tactic is literally shouting out your bias. Why does evidence need a Christian bias unless the evidence needs a bias to be accepted by Christians? If one is to accept documented, testable evidence, Is Christian evidence necessarily separate and unique from scientific evidence?

Your Bible verse from Romans is problematic. If you had ever read the Genesis fable you would know that the gods lied while the serpent told the truth.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the WINNING shot.
> 
> From a practical viewpoint, the Bible timeline on which most scholars agree starts with Abram, renamed “Abraham” by God  in the year 2166 BC (Genesis 17:4-6). Prior to that, we have the beginning in Genesis contains a rich history of creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, extensive genealogies, stories of human travails leading up to Noah, and the Great Flood (date unknown), and much more. I don't expect you to believe that as we do not know the time frame.
> 
> Don't Fort Fun Indiana, Hollie, and ReinyDays ever wish they took the WINNING shot with evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> Using gotquestions.org as a source is hardly a reason anyone other than you should accept it.
> 
> The Genesis fable is hardly a “rich history of creation”. It’s a couple of chapters written by unknown author(s), containing some obvious absurdities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis is the truth and not a fable.  It is evolution that is a fable.  Nothing has been observed and science does not back it up.  Genesis is the best explanation for why the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  It is explained in the pre-Bible Timeline and science backs it up.  We also have Answers in Genesis which explains how science backs up the Bible as another source.
> 
> The swan neck experiment shows that life won't be found below the surface of Mars because of no abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

Why would you accept the Genesis fable as truth when there are such glaring contradictions? Gods who lie while serpents tell the truth is an obvious contradiction.

Ignoring the evidence for biological evolution while believing contradictory fables is common among Christian extremists. I’m afraid your frantic claims about the Genesis fable as an answer for anything about this planet or the universe is sadly lacking. The earth is not flat. You can start with that fact. As far as science “backs up the Bible”, it’s curious that you offer no support for such a statement.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ... It is explained in the pre-Bible Timeline and science backs it up ...



*Heresy* ... there is no pre-Bible time line ... is this your own private religion or something? ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> . So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species?


Nothing at all! Question away. But -- nothing personal -- scientists have been doing that for 160 years. You are probably not going to come up with a question they have not thought of already. So, if someone is honestly questioning the theory, their first act should be to go see what the scientists have learned about that question.

One thing we can safely say, knowing evolution is a fact: all species on Earth share a common ancestor. Not just a species, but one individual of a species was the common ancestor. This is mathematical certainty.


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is mathematical certainty.



Approaching certainty ...


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> . So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing at all! Question away. But -- nothing personal -- scientists have been doing that for 160 years. You are probably not going to come up with a question they have not thought of already. So, if someone is honestly questioning the theory, their first act should be to go see what the scientists have learned about that question.
> 
> One thing we can safely say, knowing evolution is a fact: all species on Earth share a common ancestor. Not just a species, but one individual of a species was the common ancestor. This is mathematical certainty.
Click to expand...

You misrepresent science when you say evolution is a fact.  You can operate under the assumption that evolution is true but nothing is ever really settled in science.  

Can you prove all species share a common ancestor?  That is the question, right?  That natural selection explains the evolution of species but not their origin.

Do you know why there are no transitional fossils for new species (think drastically different species)?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is mathematical certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Approaching certainty ...
Click to expand...

IF evolution is a fact, it's certainty, is what i mean.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> You misrepresent science when you say evolution is a fact.


No. I am not saying science has 100% proven it. I am saying it is as proven as it needs to be for us to call it fact and move on. As with everything, you are free to question or challenge that. 




ding said:


> Can you prove all species share a common ancestor?


Now you are misrepresenting science. Science doesn't "prove" hypotheses. All we can do is look at all the evidence and safely assume evolution is, in fact, the origin of the diversity of species. Given this assumption, it is mathematical certainty that all species share a common ancestor.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misrepresent science when you say evolution is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am not saying science has 100% proven it. I am saying it is as proven as it needs to be for us to call it fact and move on. As with everything, you are free to question or challenge that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove all species share a common ancestor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are misrepresenting science. Science doesn't "prove" hypotheses. All we can do is look at all the evidence and safely assume evolution is, in fact, the origin of the diversity of species. Given this assumption, it is mathematical certainty that all species share a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that there are scientific facts that can change?  If they can change, they are not facts.

So instead of using prove how about can you show me some evidence that supports your "fact" that every species has a common origin. 

So is your assertion that you previously claimed was a mathematical certainty a hypothesis, theory or a fact.  And if it is a mathematical certainty why are you crawfishing away from the word prove?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is mathematical certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Approaching certainty ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF evolution is a fact, it's certainty, is what i mean.
Click to expand...

It's not a fact.  It's called the *theory *of evolution for good reason.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> So you are saying that there are scientific facts that can change?


No. I am saying we call it "fact" for convenience, not by any definition or criteria of scientific method.. I mean, we could say every time, "we assume it as fact due to the absurdity of it not being a fact, in light of all the evidence, though it is always up for challenge, and science never proves anything beyond all doubt", but that would take too long.




ding said:


> So instead of using prove how about can you show me some evidence that supports your "fact" that every species has a common origin.


Hmm, no, that burden lies on someone challenging that idea . If evolution is taken as fact, it is all but mathematical certainty that we all share a common ancestor. Go on, have a crack at it. Try to dream up a scenario in which it is not true. It is accepted as true, because any alternative leads to contradictions. Even aside from all the evidence that supports common ancestry (fossil record, DNA), the real kicker is that assuming two or more lineages creates contradictions that cannot be resolved. But new ideas are welcomed.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nothing at all! Question away. But -- nothing personal -- scientists have been doing that for 160 years. You are probably not going to come up with a question they have not thought of already. So, if someone is honestly questioning the theory, their first act should be to go see what the scientists have learned about that question.
> 
> One thing we can safely say, knowing evolution is a fact: all species on Earth share a common ancestor. Not just a species, but one individual of a species was the common ancestor. This is mathematical certainty.



Nonsense.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Now you are misrepresenting science. Science doesn't "prove" hypotheses. All we can do is look at all the evidence and safely assume evolution is, in fact, the origin of the diversity of species. Given this assumption, it is mathematical certainty that all species share a common ancestor.



Common ancestry is a mathematical certainty?!  LOL!  Not even close.  But in any event, how can that be true when in fact the evodelusionist's interpretation of the available evidence is circularly  presupposed in his metaphysical premise of naturalism?


----------



## Ringtone

ding said:


> We know Darwin got transference wrong.  So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species.  But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.



Natural selection is a mechanism of adaptive radiation alright, but macroevolution is wholly based on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that there are scientific facts that can change?
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am saying we call it "fact" for convenience, not by any definition or criteria of scientific method.. I mean, we could say every time, "we assume it as fact due to the absurdity of it not being a fact, in light of all the evidence, though it is always up for challenge, and science never proves anything beyond all doubt", but that would take too long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So instead of using prove how about can you show me some evidence that supports your "fact" that every species has a common origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, no, that burden lies on someone challenging that idea . If evolution is taken as fact, it is all but mathematical certainty that we all share a common ancestor. Go on, have a crack at it. Try to dream up a scenario in which it is not true. It is accepted as true, because any alternative leads to contradictions. Even aside from all the evidence that supports common ancestry (fossil record, DNA), the real kicker is that assuming two or more lineages creates contradictions that cannot be resolved. But new ideas are welcomed.
Click to expand...

It is just as convenient to say the theory of evolution instead of the fact of evolution and it is entirely more accurate to say the theory of evolution.

Then it should not be hard for you to produce evidence of a common ancestor instead of waving your arms like a chicken that can't fly.

The reality is the common ancestor idea is a myth that makes no sense unless that common ancestor can procreate on his own.   I would have thought this would have been self evident.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Common ancestry is a mathematical certainty


Yep!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> It is just as convenient to say the theory of evolution instead of the fact of evolution and it is entirely more accurate to say the theory of evolution.


That is always accurate. Also perfectly fine to say it is true. True things are facts.




ding said:


> Then it should not be hard for you to produce evidence of such


Again, the evidence is: all the evidence of common ancestry that shows evolution to be true, coupled with the method used in proof by contradiction. Try it yourself. Try to dream up a way where we have at least two lineages extant with no single common ancestor. It cannot be done. If this doesn't convince you, that's your problem and puts you on the fringe.  I am fine with it.


----------



## ding

Ringtone said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know Darwin got transference wrong.  So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species.  But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection is a mechanism of adaptive radiation alright, but macroevolution is wholly based on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.
Click to expand...

Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.  

I have heard some silly things about natural selection.  Such as natural selection was responsible for inanimate matter making the leap to life.  That's not possible.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is just as convenient to say the theory of evolution instead of the fact of evolution and it is entirely more accurate to say the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> That is always accurate. Also perfectly fine to say it is true. True things are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it should not be hard for you to produce evidence of such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the evidence is: all the evidence of common ancestry that shows evolution to be true, coupled with the method used in proof by contradiction. Try it yourself. Try to dream up a way where we have at least two lineages extant with no single common ancestor. It cannot be done. If this doesn't convince you, that's your problem and puts you on the fringe.  I am fine with it.
Click to expand...

True things are facts IF they can be proven.  But I am glad that you finally accept that evolution is a theory.  Hence the name the theory of evolution.  

And that's not evidence.   Show me the evidence.  Show me the proof.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know Darwin got transference wrong.  So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species.  But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection is a mechanism of adaptive radiation alright, but macroevolution is wholly based on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.
> 
> I have heard some silly things about natural selection.  Such as natural selection was responsible for inanimate matter making the leap to life.  That's not possible.
Click to expand...

That would just be "selection". "Natural selection" is a type of selection for which we have coined a colloquial term.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know Darwin got transference wrong.  So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species.  But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection is a mechanism of adaptive radiation alright, but macroevolution is wholly based on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.
> 
> I have heard some silly things about natural selection.  Such as natural selection was responsible for inanimate matter making the leap to life.  That's not possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would just be "selection". "Natural selection" is a type of selection for which we have coined a colloquial term.
Click to expand...

No.  That would not be selection.  That would be random.   And entirely unlikely to occur.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> True things are facts IF they can be proven


 Evolution is as well "shown to be true" as any theory can or will be. Scientists are perfectly fine with calling it "true", as am I. If that bothers you, again, that's your problem. I feel no compulsion to change your mind.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> No. That would not be selection.


False. That is precisely what acted on molecules to form life. It is also what causes the formation of any molecule in nature. It is a general term for how the universe acts on things. For example, the universe "selects for" the spheroid shape of massive objects. So yes, abiogenesis was a process of selection.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> True things are facts IF they can be proven
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is as well "shown to be true" as any theory can or will be. Scientists are perfectly fine with calling it "true", as am I. If that bothers you, again, that's your problem. I feel no compulsion to change your mind.
Click to expand...

Nope.  Theories that can be tested through experiment with the results repeated over and over again would be shown as true as any theory can or will be.  The theory of evolution does not fit that bill.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That would not be selection.
> 
> 
> 
> False. That is precisely what acted on molecules to form life. It is also what causes the formation of any molecule in nature. It is a general term for how the universe acts on things. For example, the universe "selects for" the spheroid shape of massive objects. So yes, abiogenesis was a process of selection.
Click to expand...

If that were the case we would be able to repeat it over and over again.  Which no one seems to be able to do.   Not even once.


----------



## noonereal

Ringtone said:


> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.



Oh my fuckin God

seriously, just give it up

worship your invisable man in the sky but keep that shit in the closet where it belongs

Thanks


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> If that were the case we would be able to repeat it over and over again.


Oh really?

So we should have to create stars ourselves to know the universe selects for spheroidal shapes of stars?

Uh...no. We know this because we observe the shapes. We know that DNA was "selected for" by the physical forces, because it is here.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that were the case we would be able to repeat it over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> So we should have to create stars ourselves to know the universe selects for spheroidal shapes of stars?
> 
> Uh...no. We know this because we observe the shapes. We know that DNA was "selected for" by the physical forces, because it is here.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly.  We can observe the death of stars and we can observe stars being born.  

Can you observe a new species being created?

Do you have any idea at all what is actually involved in creating life from inanimate matter?  Walk me through the steps.


----------



## ding

noonereal said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my fuckin God
> 
> seriously, just give it up
> 
> worship your invisable man in the sky but keep that shit in the closet where it belongs
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...

1st amendment anyone?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Theories that can be tested through experiment with the results repeated over and over again would be shown as true as any theory can or will be.


Yep, exactly why we know all extant species had a common ancestor. It has passed every test, over and over and over. You arent offering any real insight. The global scientific community -- that considers evolution to be true and which views abiogenesis as a foregone conclusion -- understands how to perform science.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories that can be tested through experiment with the results repeated over and over again would be shown as true as any theory can or will be.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, exactly why we know all extant species had a common ancestor. It has passed every test, over and over and over. You arent offering any real insight. The global scientific community -- that considers evolution to be true and which views abiogenesis as a foregone conclusion -- understands how to perform science.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing against natural selection within a species.  I am not even arguing against natural selection as the origin of species or abiogenesis as the basis for the creation of life.  What I am telling you is that you are taking natural selection as the origin of species and abiogenesis on faith because there is not real evidence to support it.

You cannot tell me why there are no transitional fossils (I can).  You can not tell me the steps required for inanimate matter to make the leap to life (I can).  So while I have a healthy dose of I don't have all the information needed to believe these are fact like you, you take these things on faith because you sure as hell don't know much about them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Can you observe a new species being created?


Yes, and we have. Ding, try as you might, neither you nor any religious charlatan in this thread are offering any serious challenges to the facts that are the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. You are free to mount an actual challenge, using evidence or theory, any time you lke. Good luck!


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories that can be tested through experiment with the results repeated over and over again would be shown as true as any theory can or will be.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, exactly why we know all extant species had a common ancestor. It has passed every test, over and over and over. You arent offering any real insight. The global scientific community -- that considers evolution to be true and which views abiogenesis as a foregone conclusion -- understands how to perform science.
Click to expand...

You are like a religious fundamentalist when it comes to science.  You will fight to the death defending a dogma you don't understand.  It's your religion.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you observe a new species being created?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and we have. Ding, try as you might, neither you nor any religious charlatan in this thread are offering any serious challenges to the facts that are the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. You are free to mount an actual challenge, using evidence or theory, any time you lke. Good luck!
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this new species that was created?  Not just some variation of a previous species, right?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> the *theory *of evolution


This is progress.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Do you understand the coefficient of selection and how it is used in equation 1.0? ... I'm not going to waste my time on you explaining simple high school math ...



Just like Hollie, you're not going to demonstrate that you actually have first-hand knowledge and understanding of your copy-and-paste, you're not going explain just how your copy-and-paste falsifies my observations? 

I didn't think you would, just like none of you have addressed the observation that the evodelusionist circularly presupposes naturalism is true in his interpretation of the available evidence.  

_Hocus Pocus_

The mathematics do not falsify a speciation of common design over geological time in any way, shape or form!  The evodelusionist just arbitrarily denies the alternative potentiality.  Biological history's mathematical chronology of speciation is perfectly compatible with a biological history of common design.

You just can't grasp why that's so because your just fronting with your copy-and-paste.  I see right through you.

Still winning!


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> religious charlatan


Moi?  I'm a degreed engineer.  What's YOUR background.  Because as near as I can tell you are a scientific charlatan who has elevated science to a religion and have no real understanding beyond the superficial.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know Darwin got transference wrong.  So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species.  But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection is a mechanism of adaptive radiation alright, but macroevolution is wholly based on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.
Click to expand...

ID’iot creationers often get confused with terms of science due to their lack of training in the subject matter. Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.  

There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. ID’iot creationers admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> You cannot why there are no transitional fossils


Not only is this ridiculously false, every fossil is a transitional fossil. Make your claim to a biologist. Report back, when the laughter subsides.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> I'm a degreed engineer.


So not a scientist. But we knew that already. I am not a scientist, either.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Re: abiogensis

We don't know exactly how it happened. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects the two states is abiogenesis. It's a foregone conclusion.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Why would you accept the Genesis fable as truth when there are such glaring contradictions? Gods who lie while serpents tell the truth is an obvious contradiction.



It's you, the atheist scientists, and the guy in the red union suit with horns and pitchfork who contradict God's word.  God said it all first.  Satan came afterward.  Again, God said, 

"God's Wrath against Sin
…Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen." Romans 1:24-25

You're the one freely giving in to Satan and believing in the lie of evolution.  I think this will be _your greatest regret_ and woe as the truth was right before your eyes and you still chose to accept the lie.

Otherwise, your side would've won already.  Look how much of an advantage you have in education, museums, encyclopedias, etc. vs. the Bible.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the coefficient of selection and how it is used in equation 1.0? ... I'm not going to waste my time on you explaining simple high school math ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like Hollie, you're not going to demonstrate that you actually have first-hand knowledge and understanding of your copy-and-paste, you're not going explain just how your copy-and-paste falsifies my observations?
> 
> I didn't think you would, just like none of you have addressed the observation that the evodelusionist circularly presupposes naturalism is true in his interpretation of the available evidence.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> The mathematics do not falsify a speciation of common design over geological time in any way, shape or form!  The evodelusionist just arbitrarily denies the alternative potentiality.  Biological history's mathematical chronology of speciation is perfectly compatible with a biological history of common design.
> 
> You just can't grasp why that's so because your just fronting with your copy-and-paste.  I see right through you.
> 
> Still winning!
Click to expand...

Your “observations” being silly YouTube videos are not your observations at all. They are the rattling of non-biologists attempting to justify ID’iot creationism within the scientific realm of biological evolution.

The observations of Disco’tute charlatans presuppose an agenda, just as yours do. Why does it fall to anyone in this thread to refute a YouTube video?

_Winning_!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you accept the Genesis fable as truth when there are such glaring contradictions? Gods who lie while serpents tell the truth is an obvious contradiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's you, the atheist scientists, and the guy in the red union suit with horns and pitchfork who contradict God's word.  God said it all first.  Satan came afterward.  Again, God said,
> 
> "God's Wrath against Sin
> …Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen." Romans 1:24-25
> 
> You're the one freely giving in to Satan and believing in the lie of evolution.  I think this will be _your greatest regret_ and woe as the truth was right before your eyes and you still chose to accept the lie.
> 
> Otherwise, your side would've won already.  Look how much of an advantage you have in education, museums, encyclopedias, etc. vs. the Bible.
Click to expand...

Your fantasies of guys in red union suits with horns and pitchforks, well, I believe should stay away from those.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have it right.  It is the atheists and their scientists who believe in potential infinities as actual infinities in the natural world.  They do not understand potential infinities and actual infinities.  Actual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world.  It is potential infinities that exist in the natural world.  For example, we can have a set of counting numbers.  Cosmologists may disagree, but the universe has to be bounded or else we can have an infinite past and other crazy things.  Scientists believed in an infinite universe before the big bang theory and it was disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, James, you don't have it right, and I don't need you to explain to me  what potential and actual infinities are, and, subsequently, what the distinction between potential and actual infinities. is.  I grasp these thing.  What you don't grasp is what an actual infinite is.
> 
> You keep saying that "[a]ctual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world."
> 
> False!  The supernatural world has nothing to do with the price of beans in China.
> 
> They exist in both the natural and supernatural world, albeit, as mathematical concepts in minds ONLY.  They conceptually exist in the minds of man, angels and God.  An actual infinite is the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.   The place where actual infinities do not have existentiality is outside of minds.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're on your own and getting beaten up in this thread.
> 
> Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.
> 
> So did you lose?
Click to expand...


Don't even try to throw shade on me, James.  Of course I'm winning. No one on this thread has or can refute the potentiality of the following:

The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. *Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.*​​While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​
The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​​​


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> *Heresy* ... there is no pre-Bible time line ... is this your own private religion or something? ...



Genesis (first three chapters -- Genesis 1 Parallel Chapters) includes pre-time.  It wasn't in the Bible Timeline I shared.  It can be presented as such before 4000 BC.

What about the evolution timeline?  It's changed so often.  The Earth and universe gets older with each change.  Remember, you used to believe in an infinite universe.  That sounds like a fake timeline to me if you keep changing it at a drop of a hat.  Furthermore, when creationists date fossils using carbon dating (because they can), it isn't accepted because it doesn't fit your timeline.  Moreover, there is soft tissue still remaining.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Re: abiogensis
> 
> We don't know exactly how it happened. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects the two states is abiogenesis. It's a foregone conclusion.



What a fairy tale.  You believe in impossible things that no one has ever seen.  Abiogenesis has been proven to be impossible via the swan neck experiment.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have it right.  It is the atheists and their scientists who believe in potential infinities as actual infinities in the natural world.  They do not understand potential infinities and actual infinities.  Actual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world.  It is potential infinities that exist in the natural world.  For example, we can have a set of counting numbers.  Cosmologists may disagree, but the universe has to be bounded or else we can have an infinite past and other crazy things.  Scientists believed in an infinite universe before the big bang theory and it was disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, James, you don't have it right, and I don't need you to explain to me  what potential and actual infinities are, and, subsequently, what the distinction between potential and actual infinities. is.  I grasp these thing.  What you don't grasp is what an actual infinite is.
> 
> You keep saying that "[a]ctual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world."
> 
> False!  The supernatural world has nothing to do with the price of beans in China.
> 
> They exist in both the natural and supernatural world, albeit, as mathematical concepts in minds ONLY.  They conceptually exist in the minds of man, angels and God.  An actual infinite is the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.   The place where actual infinities do not have existentiality is outside of minds.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're on your own and getting beaten up in this thread.
> 
> Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.
> 
> So did you lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't even try to throw shade on me, James.  Of course I'm winning. No one on this thread has or can refute the potentiality of the following:
> 
> The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. *Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.*​​While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​​The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​​​
Click to expand...

Already refuted. Nothing in your tedious cutting and pasting refutes the fact that organisms evolve over time (a fact in spite of ID’iot creationer objections), or that there is any limit as to the amount of change that biological evolution can have over species.

Still winning at the expense of the religious extremists!


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Your fantasies of guys in red union suits with horns and pitchforks, well, I believe should stay away from those.



I think it is God's revelation for you.  The truth was right in front of your eyes, but you chose the other.  I can't explain how _everything_ in the Bible is contradicted.  I tried to point it out here, but soon realized it wasn't a winning argument.  The main man in the red union suit is too powerful and wants to remain hidden.  He has my respect.


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> Don't even try to throw shade on me, James. Of course I'm winning. No one on this thread has or can refute the potentiality of the following:



No, Michael, you aren't winning.  Just ask others in this thread.  You are on you own.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have it right.  It is the atheists and their scientists who believe in potential infinities as actual infinities in the natural world.  They do not understand potential infinities and actual infinities.  Actual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world.  It is potential infinities that exist in the natural world.  For example, we can have a set of counting numbers.  Cosmologists may disagree, but the universe has to be bounded or else we can have an infinite past and other crazy things.  Scientists believed in an infinite universe before the big bang theory and it was disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, James, you don't have it right, and I don't need you to explain to me  what potential and actual infinities are, and, subsequently, what the distinction between potential and actual infinities. is.  I grasp these thing.  What you don't grasp is what an actual infinite is.
> 
> You keep saying that "[a]ctual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world."
> 
> False!  The supernatural world has nothing to do with the price of beans in China.
> 
> They exist in both the natural and supernatural world, albeit, as mathematical concepts in minds ONLY.  They conceptually exist in the minds of man, angels and God.  An actual infinite is the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.   The place where actual infinities do not have existentiality is outside of minds.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're on your own and getting beaten up in this thread.
> 
> Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.
> 
> So did you lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't even try to throw shade on me, James.  Of course I'm winning. No one on this thread has or can refute the potentiality of the following:
> 
> The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. *Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.*​​While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​​The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​​​
Click to expand...

Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._


To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasies of guys in red union suits with horns and pitchforks, well, I believe should stay away from those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is God's revelation for you.  The truth was right in front of your eyes, but you chose the other.  I can't explain how _everything_ in the Bible is contradicted.  I tried to point it out here, but soon realized it wasn't a winning argument.  The main man in the red union suit is too powerful and wants to remain hidden.  He has my respect.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks, but if any of the gods want to reveal themselves to me they can do so at any time.

Your fascination with men in red onion suits is fascinating. Carry on.


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know Darwin got transference wrong.  So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species.  But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection is a mechanism of adaptive radiation alright, but macroevolution is wholly based on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ID’iot creationers often get confused with terms of science due to their lack of training in the subject matter. Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.
> 
> There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. ID’iot creationers admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it.  I just don't take it on faith like you do.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a degreed engineer.
> 
> 
> 
> So not a scientist. But we knew that already. I am not a scientist, either.
Click to expand...

Engineering is the commercial application of science.  

Working at Wally World isn't.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Re: abiogensis
> 
> We don't know exactly how it happened. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects the two states is abiogenesis. It's a foregone conclusion.


So you take it on faith.  Like a religion.  <giggle>


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Re: abiogensis
> 
> We don't know exactly how it happened. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects the two states is abiogenesis. It's a foregone conclusion.


Can you tell me how you think it happened?  Paint me a picture.  Ball park estimate.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot tell me why there are no transitional fossils (I can).
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is this ridiculously false, every fossil is a transitional fossil. Make your claim to a biologist. Report back, when the laughter subsides.
Click to expand...

Do you not know what is meant by transitional fossils?  I learned about the absence of transitional fossils by reading a book written by the paleontologist who worked on Peking Man.  Are you laughing at him too?

The reality is you only have a superficial understanding of transitional fossils.  Which is why you tried to bluff your way through this. 

So let me ask you again, and this time please put some effort into researching the question... *can YOU tell me why there are no transitional fossils because  I can.  *


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.



Aristotle does not agree with you, James. Stop it!

You claimed that the actual infinite only exists in the supernatural realm.  

FALSE!

No mathematician agrees with that BS!

THE ACTUAL INFINITE EXISTS AS A CONCEPT IN MINDS ONLY. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EXISTENTIALITY OUTSIDE OF MINDS.  THE NATURAL REALM VS THE SUPERNATURAL REALM HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE MATTER.

Your own citation refutes you:

The _actual infinite_ involves never-ending sets or 'things' within a space that has a beginning and end; it is a series that is technically 'completed' but consists of an infinite number of members. *According to Aristotle, actual infinities cannot exist because they are paradoxical. It is impossible to say that you can always 'take another step' or 'add another member' in a completed set with a beginning and end, unlike a potential infinite. *It is ultimately *Aristotle’s rejection of the actual infinite that allowed him to refute Zeno’s paradox*.​
But here's a better source, given that yours is from a blog:  

*The previous two chapters have established that the infinite cannot exist actually, so, by disjunctive syllogism, the infinite must exist potentially.* *In Aristotle’s words, ‘The alternative then remains that the infinite has a potential existence’*. . . .​​. . .  *Of course, the force of this conclusion is that the infinite has only a potential existence, and never an actual one*, since actual infinities have been categorically ruled out. Aristotle emphasizes this point in the following passage: *'But we must not construe potential existence in the way we do when we say that it is possible for this to be a statue—this will be a statue, but something infinite will not be in actuality.'*​​But there is a twist to Aristotle's reasoning in terms of time, which entails the very opposite of what you contend.  LOL!


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Well, thanks, but if any of the gods want to reveal themselves to me they can do so at any time.



He did yesterday, but you miss the important things.



Hollie said:


> Your fascination with men in red onion suits is fascinating. Carry on.



Now, the other guy practically owns you.  You can't avoid his temptations which is to follow me and bug (disagree) with me.


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle does not agree with you, James. Stop it!
> 
> You claimed that the actual infinite only exists in the supernatural realm.
> 
> FALSE!
> 
> No mathematician agrees with that BS!
> 
> THE ACTUAL INFINITE EXISTS AS A CONCEPT IN MINDS ONLY. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EXISTENTIALITY OUTSIDE OF MINDS.  THE NATURAL REALM VS THE SUPERNATURAL REALM HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE MATTER.
> 
> Your own citation refutes you:
> 
> The _actual infinite_ involves never-ending sets or 'things' within a space that has a beginning and end; it is a series that is technically 'completed' but consists of an infinite number of members. *According to Aristotle, actual infinities cannot exist because they are paradoxical. It is impossible to say that you can always 'take another step' or 'add another member' in a completed set with a beginning and end, unlike a potential infinite. *It is ultimately *Aristotle’s rejection of the actual infinite that allowed him to refute Zeno’s paradox*.​
> But here's a better source, given that yours is from a blog:
> 
> *The previous two chapters have established that the infinite cannot exist actually, so, by disjunctive syllogism, the infinite must exist potentially.* *In Aristotle’s words, ‘The alternative then remains that the infinite has a potential existence’*. . . .​​. . .  *Of course, the force of this conclusion is that the infinite has only a potential existence, and never an actual one*, since actual infinities have been categorically ruled out. Aristotle emphasizes this point in the following passage: *'But we must not construe potential existence in the way we do when we say that it is possible for this to be a statue—this will be a statue, but something infinite will not be in actuality.'*​​But there is a twist to Aristotle's reasoning in terms of time, which entails the very opposite of what you contend.  LOL!
Click to expand...


smh.  You are going in circles instead of admitting you lost the argument.  Your own writing betrays you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Abiogenesis has been proven to be impossible via the swan neck experiment.


Lie.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thanks, but if any of the gods want to reveal themselves to me they can do so at any time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did yesterday, but you miss the important things.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fascination with men in red onion suits is fascinating. Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, the other guy practically owns you.  You can't avoid his temptations which is to follow me and bug (disagree) with me.
Click to expand...

If it's OK with you, I'll manage the various gods on an as-needed basis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Do you not know what is meant by transitional fossils?


I do and you don't. Its not even really a term used by scientists anymore. But using the old definitions from, apparently, your youth, we have found mountains of them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> can YOU tell me why there are no transitional fossils


No, because that's delusional.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not know what is meant by transitional fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> I do and you don't. Its not even really a term used by scientists anymore. But using the old definitions from, apparently, your youth, we have found mountains of them.
Click to expand...

A major point in deviation.  One so apparently large that it distinguishes itself from its former species unlike other slight variations.  Punctuated equilibrium so to speak.

So again, rather than actually offer anything of value, you go off on a tangent to hide your ignorance.  Rather than discussing what it was, you talk about how it's not used or is an old definition and then hurl a thinly veiled insult as if you actually believed you were talking down to someone of lesser intelligence.

So no, I don't think you do know why there are no transitional fossils.  I think all you have done is a cursory google search and can't discuss why they don't exist because you don't know why they don't exist and you couldn't find the answer in a 5 minute google search.  You're a fraud.  A fake. A charlatan.  A religious fanatic.


----------



## Stryder50

Haven't time to read through this whole thread, so just in case not already mentioned;
> The fossil record isn't a very exact or complete "record".  Normally living things undergo decay and re-absorption into other living things.  Fossils happen when some living thing becomes encased in material that blocks off the prospect of decay, such as suddenly buried in a mudslide.  Point being it's possible, probable, that many former species may not have left a "fossil record" they existed, or were a transitional species of sorts.
> Of the 20 known amino acids, the same four are used in all DNA ( and three of those four plus a fifth are in RNA).  One would expect that if there was spontaneous generation of life in Earths past, it might have resulted in several different formulas/patterns of DNA using the other amino acids.
This could be the case where panspermia may apply;








						PANSPERMIA THEORY origin of life on Earth directed panspermia lithopanspermia meteorites
					

Panspermia theory: the origin of life on Earth and the transfer of life throughout the Universe. Popular variations are lithopanspermia and directed panspermia




					www.panspermia-theory.com
				



> After life was seeded on this planet, then evolution may have kicked in to expand the process.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> can YOU tell me why there are no transitional fossils
> 
> 
> 
> No, because that's delusional.
Click to expand...

So you are saying there isn't a logical answer that explains the origin of a species and it's lack of transitional fossils?  

That's really odd.  I would think anyone who believed that evolution was a fact would at least be able to logically explain the absence of transitional fossils.  Especially since I can.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> ID’iot creationers often get confused with terms of science due to their lack of training in the subject matter. Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.
> 
> There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. ID’iot creationers admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.



The evodelutionist believes in magic


james bond said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle does not agree with you, James. Stop it!
> 
> You claimed that the actual infinite only exists in the supernatural realm.
> 
> FALSE!
> 
> No mathematician agrees with that BS!
> 
> THE ACTUAL INFINITE EXISTS AS A CONCEPT IN MINDS ONLY. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EXISTENTIALITY OUTSIDE OF MINDS.  THE NATURAL REALM VS THE SUPERNATURAL REALM HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE MATTER.
> 
> Your own citation refutes you:
> 
> The _actual infinite_ involves never-ending sets or 'things' within a space that has a beginning and end; it is a series that is technically 'completed' but consists of an infinite number of members. *According to Aristotle, actual infinities cannot exist because they are paradoxical. It is impossible to say that you can always 'take another step' or 'add another member' in a completed set with a beginning and end, unlike a potential infinite. *It is ultimately *Aristotle’s rejection of the actual infinite that allowed him to refute Zeno’s paradox*.​
> But here's a better source, given that yours is from a blog:
> 
> *The previous two chapters have established that the infinite cannot exist actually, so, by disjunctive syllogism, the infinite must exist potentially.* *In Aristotle’s words, ‘The alternative then remains that the infinite has a potential existence’*. . . .​​. . .  *Of course, the force of this conclusion is that the infinite has only a potential existence, and never an actual one*, since actual infinities have been categorically ruled out. Aristotle emphasizes this point in the following passage: *'But we must not construe potential existence in the way we do when we say that it is possible for this to be a statue—this will be a statue, but something infinite will not be in actuality.'*​​But there is a twist to Aristotle's reasoning in terms of time, which entails the very opposite of what you contend.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> smh.  You are going in circles instead of admitting you lost the argument.  Your own writing betrays you.
Click to expand...


LOL!   James, you don't understand the matter at all.

Tell me, James, what precisely is the real value of the surreal number  ∞?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> So no, I don't think you do know why there are no transitional fossils


Because that is silly and false. You can try to talk about me all day (and you will), but you are wrong and will not get the answer you are looking for.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. You can say "gods did it!", but that is still a form of abiogenesis. Life from no life.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Re: abiogensis
> 
> We don't know exactly how it happened. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects the two states is abiogenesis. It's a foregone conclusion.



So you know that abiogenesis happened . . . because there was no life and, then, suddenly, there was life.  Nature necessarily did it via some process of chemical evolution! 

Behold  Fort Fun Indiana' religious faith of naturalism..

In the meantime, see the following article written by someone who is steeped in the pertinent abiogenetic research:   *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism**.*

Oh, wait!  The guy who wrote that article is I,, Michael Rawlings (a.k.a, Ringtone)!  LOL!

Ringtone's opinion  = steeped in the pertinent abiogenetic research.

Fort Fun Indiana's opinion = steeped in faith.

____________

*Edit:   Fort Fun Indiana's opinion = steeped in blind faith, i.e., fideism. *


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A major point in deviation. One so apparently large that it distinguishes itself from its former species unlike other slight variations. Punctuated equilibrium so to speak.
> 
> So again, rather than actually offer anything of value, you go off on a tangent to hide your ignorance. Rather than discussing what it was, you talk about how it's not used or is an old definition and then hurl a thinly veiled insult as if you actually believed you were talking down to someone of lesser intelligence.
> 
> So no, I don't think you do know why there are no transitional fossils. I think all you have done is a cursory google search and can't discuss why they don't exist because you don't know why they don't exist and you couldn't find the answer in a 5 minute google search. You're a fraud. A fake. A charlatan. A religious fanatic.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is silly and false. You can try to talk about me all day (and you will), but you are wrong and will not get the answer you are looking for.
Click to expand...

Because you don't know it.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. You can say "gods did it!", but that is still a form of abiogenesis. Life from no life.


I never said God did it.  And I've never heard anyone say that special creation was a form of abiogenesis like you just did.

Given your inability to paint even the simplest of pictures of what abiogenesis would have looked like, it might as well have been a special creative act for all you know about it.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> ID’iot creationers often get confused with terms of science due to their lack of training in the subject matter. Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.
> 
> There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. ID’iot creationers admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.



You repeat yourself again, and the metaphysical circularity of your argument and the ad hominem of your argument are noted, just as your failure to directly address and refute my argument:

The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​​While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​
The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even try to throw shade on me, James. Of course I'm winning. No one on this thread has or can refute the potentiality of the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Michael, you aren't winning.  Just ask others in this thread.  You are on you own.
Click to expand...


You are a liar and a fool., always have been.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> So you know that abiogenesis happened . . . because there was no life and, then, suddenly, there was life.


"Suddenly" is your word. We just know that once there was.no life on Earth, then there was. What connects these two states is abiogenesis: "life from not life". 

Even your silly Adam and Eve creation myth is a convoluted  form of abiogenesis.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> *So you know that abiogenesis happened . . . because there was no life and, then, suddenly, there was life.  Nature necessarily did it via some process of chemical evolution! *
> 
> Behold  Fort Fun Indiana' religious faith of naturalism..
> 
> In the meantime, see the following article written by someone who is steeped in the pertinent abiogenetic research:   *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism**.*
> 
> Oh, wait!  The guy who wrote that article is I,, Michael Rawlings (a.k.a, Ringtone)!  LOL!
> 
> Ringtone's opinion  = steeped in the pertinent abiogenetic research.
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana's opinion = steeped in faith.


He does NOT necessarily know.
He makes a beginner logic error with the absolute/superlative declaration.

*One YOU also made saying abio was "Manifestly Impossible," and I caught you and made YOU pay.
You PANICKED, knowing you were caught, and tried to shift the burden...not being able to answer me . maybe 5 in a row.
You have been reduced to this behavior (and idiotic poetry) by others as well.*
You're not in my league jr.
and you're a FRAUD who can only 'win' on your own Blog.... and post under your own dogma threads.
I take all comers in my Meaty ones that You avoid... which are NOT philosophical/semantic nonsense.

What we do have is, ie, threads like this that are suggestive of his claim, but not THE spark/"necessarily"

*Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth*
Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com
Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Eartjh





__





						Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on
					

No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking. We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions.  Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com Scientists...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				






`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> I never said God did it.


I didn't say you did. I said you could say he did, and it would not conflict with anything i am saying.




ding said:


> Given your inability to paint even the simplest of pictures of what abiogenesis would have looked like


Of course i can. Any child who can read can go look it up. I can relate what scientists think, and that's probably about it. Is there a reason you want me to perform this exercise for you, when you could look it up yourself? I have no special access to info that you do not.

All this dancing and prancing on your part...and all for this? To what.... To say we don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened? Well thank you, Captain Obvious. If we want to know any other mundane facts wrapped in a steaming pile of melodrama and self-aggrandizement, we will be sure to look you up.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you did. I said you could say he did, and it would not conflict with anything i am saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given your inability to paint even the simplest of pictures of what abiogenesis would have looked like
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course i can. Any child who can read can go look it up. I can relate what scientists think, and that's probably about it. Is there a reason you want me to perform this exercise for you, when you could look it up yourself? I have no special access to info that you do not.
> 
> All this dancing and prancing on your part...and all for this? To what.... To say we don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened? Well thank you, Captain Obvious. If we want to know any other mundane facts wrapped in a steaming pile of melodrama and self-aggrandizement, we will be sure to look you up.
Click to expand...

That's probably why you still can't do it any better than you could discuss transitional fossils and their absence.

You can't really discuss any of this, can you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> transitional fossils and their absence.


Which is false.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> transitional fossils and their absence.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is false.
Click to expand...

According to you all fossils are transitional fossils.  According to you you have no idea HOW inanimate matter made the leap to life.

So, no.  Not false.  Transitional fossils don't exist for logical reasons.  Logical reasons you know nothing about.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> According to you all fossils are transitional fossils


In a way, yes, they are. All species are transitioning to another species at some rate or another. This is all that is meant when i say that. 

But you delusional and wrong to think no transitional species have been found, by any definition.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> According to you you have no idea HOW inanimate matter made the leap to life.


Correct. We just know that it did, somehow.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you all fossils are transitional fossils
> 
> 
> 
> In a way, yes, they are. All species are transitioning to another species at some rate or another. This is all that is meant when i say that.
> 
> But you delusional and wrong to think no transitional species have been found, by any definition.
Click to expand...

It's been a bone of contention by those who don't believe in evolution.... for decades.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you you have no idea HOW inanimate matter made the leap to life.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. We just know that it did, somehow.
Click to expand...

Well... no.  We actually have an idea of how it would have had to have occurred.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> It's been a bone of contention by those who don't believe in evolution.... for decades.


Longer than that. And they are wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> We actually have an idea of how it would have had to occurred.


Well sure, but i didn't anticipate you being so weaselly as to split your own hairs. I stand corrected on that.

Yes, we know it was constrained by determinism and physical laws. And we know the main elements involved and a lot about. how these elements interact.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been a bone of contention by those who don't believe in evolution.... for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> Longer than that. And they are wrong.
Click to expand...

If you don't know why they don't exist how can you say that?  It is the key point in the debate; major changes which led to entirely new species that were significantly different.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> If you don't know why they don't exist how can you say that?


They do exist. You are wrong. Ding, you are just frustrating yourself. Find one of your fellow religious charlatans to exchange lies with. You are pissing in the wind with anyone else.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually have an idea of how it would have had to occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Well sure, but i didn't anticipate you being so weaselly as to split your own hairs. I stand corrected on that.
> 
> Yes, we know it was constrained by determinism and physical laws. And we know the main elements involved and a lot about. how these elements interact.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one being weaselly.  That would be you.  And you are doing so because you are trying to bluff your way through this conversation.  You still are not actually saying anything.  You can't because you don't know.  Constrained by determinism and physical laws doesn't say jack shit.  What the fuck does that even mean?  

Please tell me more about these main elements that you know a lot about.  Please tell me how these elements interact.  What had to have happened?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually have an idea of how it would have had to occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Well sure, but i didn't anticipate you being so weaselly as to split your own hairs. I stand corrected on that.
> 
> Yes, we know it was constrained by determinism and physical laws. And we know the main elements involved and a lot about. how these elements interact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the one being weaselly.  That would be you.  And you are doing so because you are trying to bluff your way through this conversation.  You still are not actually saying anything.  You can't because you don't know.  Constrained by determinism and physical laws doesn't say jack shit.  What the fuck does that even mean?
> 
> Please tell me more about these main elements that you know a lot about.  Please tell me how these elements interact.  What had to have happened?
Click to expand...

You're a fetishist, ding. Too much time in churches had caused you to think that the truth relies on authority. It doesn't matter what i personally know or don't know, just as it doesn't matter that you are not a scientist and have no experience in any scientific field, ever. The evidence is unaffected by these things.

I said what i said. It was enough to get you attached to my ankles. So apparently i said something of import.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know why they don't exist how can you say that?
> 
> 
> 
> They do exist. You are wrong. Ding, you are just frustrating yourself. Find one of your fellow religious charlatans to exchange lies with. You are pissing in the wind with anyone else.
Click to expand...

*



			Transitional versus ancestral[edit]
		
Click to expand...

*


> A source of confusion is the notion that a transitional form between two different taxonomic groups must be a direct ancestor of one or both groups. The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy is to identify taxa that were ancestors of other taxa. However, because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process producing a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. Transitional fossil - Wikipedia



The fossil record could be complete and they should still never expect to see the transition.  Why?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually have an idea of how it would have had to occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Well sure, but i didn't anticipate you being so weaselly as to split your own hairs. I stand corrected on that.
> 
> Yes, we know it was constrained by determinism and physical laws. And we know the main elements involved and a lot about. how these elements interact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the one being weaselly.  That would be you.  And you are doing so because you are trying to bluff your way through this conversation.  You still are not actually saying anything.  You can't because you don't know.  Constrained by determinism and physical laws doesn't say jack shit.  What the fuck does that even mean?
> 
> Please tell me more about these main elements that you know a lot about.  Please tell me how these elements interact.  What had to have happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fetishist, ding. Too much time in churches had caused you to think that the truth relies on authority. It doesn't matter what i personally know or don't know, just as it doesn't matter that you are not a scientist and have no experience in any scientific field, ever. The evidence is unaffected by these things.
> 
> I said what i said. It was enough to get you attached to my ankles. So apparently i said something of import.
Click to expand...

You can't tell me more about these main elements that you supposedly know a lot about or tell me how these elements interact or tell me what had to have happened because you don't know.

And rather than admit that you don't know, you try to hide your ignorance by changing the subject.


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on
> 
> 
> No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking. We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions.  Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com Scientists...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com



*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*

 Abiogenesis is NOT biochemical engineering!  Not even close.  

Where did the preexisting strands of amyloid protein structures  come  from?  Where did the preexisting and even more complex organic molecules, which produced them in the first place, come from? Also, please name the preexisting and even more complex organic molecules  that produced them.

Answer the question, then drop and give me 50!  Thanks.

Still winning!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> The fossil record could be complete and they should still never expect to see the transition.


False. You don't even understand the material you presented.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> You can't tell me more about these main elements that you supposedly know a lot about or tell me how these elements interact or tell me what had to have happened because you don't know.



Whether i could or couldn't has no bearing on anything. You always end up in this same downward spiral.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record could be complete and they should still never expect to see the transition.
> 
> 
> 
> False. You don't even understand the material you presented.
Click to expand...

So you would expect to see them?  Why?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't tell me more about these main elements that you supposedly know a lot about or tell me how these elements interact or tell me what had to have happened because you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether i could or couldn't has no bearing on anything. You always end up in this same downward spiral.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was always the point of this discussion.  You are textbook example of a fanatic.  Arguing for things in which you have no understanding of.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID’iot creationers often get confused with terms of science due to their lack of training in the subject matter. Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.
> 
> There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. ID’iot creationers admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You repeat yourself again, and the metaphysical circularity of your argument and the ad hominem of your argument are noted, just as your failure to directly address and refute my argument:
> 
> The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​​While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​​The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​
Click to expand...

Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._


To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> So you would expect to see them?


If the fossil record is complete? Of course. But even that teem is not well defined. The borders between species are not well defined and follow many different criteria. One is time: chronospecies, by which the borders are time markers, chosen for convenience. .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Actually, it was always the point of this discussion


To you, because you are a fetishist. Every discussion with you ends up with you trying to talk about credentials or what someone knows about something, instead of the material itself. How boring.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would expect to see them?
> 
> 
> 
> If the fossil record is complete? Of course. But even that teem is not well defined. The borders between species are not well defined and follow many different criteria. One is time: chronospecies, by which the borders are time markers, chosen for convenience. .
Click to expand...

That assumes slight changes from generation to generation.  That's not how evolution works.  So even if the fossil record were complete you shouldn't expect to be able to see the transition because there wasn't one.  

Everything you just wrote was bullshit.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was always the point of this discussion
> 
> 
> 
> To you, because you are a fetishist. Every discussion with you ends up with you trying to talk about credentials or what someone knows about something, instead of the material itself. How boring.
Click to expand...

That's pretty funny coming from an ax grinder like you.  Be that as it may, you have shown your inability to discuss anything related to your beliefs.  You take it on faith because you are a religious fanatic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> That assumes slight changes from generation to generation. That's not how evolution works


No it doesn't. It assumes we don't know the rate of change at all times. And yes, evolution can sometimes work that way, though it doesn't have to mean a slight change in EVERY generation. 

But yet again, we happen upon a topic where you claim what the scientists say and do is false and stupid. Have you published your research paper?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That assumes slight changes from generation to generation. That's not how evolution works
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. It assumes we don't know the rate of change at all times. And yes, evolution can sometimes work that way, though it doesn't have to mean a slight change in EVERY generation.
> 
> But yet again, we happen upon a topic where you claim what the scientists say and do is false and stupid. Have you published your research paper?
Click to expand...

If it is as you say that all transitions would be seen if the fossil record was complete precludes mutations which are dramatic and had no transition.


----------



## ding

Furthermore, these mutations would not be one offs but would occur across the species at about the same time creating a gene pool for the new species.  Yoar welcome.


----------



## ding

It's mind boggling to think that like a ticking time bomb nature coordinated mutations to create a new species.  Mind boggling.


----------



## ding

There are no transitions because punctuated equilibrium doesn't create transitions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> If it is as you say that all transitions would be seen if the fossil record was complete precludes mutations which are dramatic and had no transition.


No. I believe what modern scientists say: that evolution can and does happen at all speeds.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on
> 
> 
> No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking. We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions.  Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com Scientists...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*
> 
> Abiogenesis is NOT biochemical engineering!  Not even close.
> 
> Where did the preexisting strands of amyloid protein structures  come  from?  Where did the preexisting and even more complex organic molecules, which produced them in the first place, come from? Also, please name the preexisting and even more complex organic molecules  that produced them.
> 
> Answer the question, then drop and give me 50!  Thanks.
> 
> Still winning!
Click to expand...


Actually, Nick Matzke has done some research on this very topic.



			https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242594653_Evolution_in_Brownian_space_a_model_for_the_origin_of_the_bacterial_flagellum
		



While you’re not aware of the processes of science, it involves a process of hypotheses, theories and testing to see if the model survives rigorous experimentation.

Otherwise, we’re still waiting for publication of that “_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”*_

That seems fair. It’s fair that ID’iot creationer claims to supernatural gods meet the same standard of review that the relevant sciences are subject to.

So, when can we see the ID’iot creationer data supporting a flat earth, creation by supernatural gods, talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is as you say that all transitions would be seen if the fossil record was complete precludes mutations which are dramatic and had no transition.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I believe what modern scientists say: that evolution can and does happen at all speeds.
Click to expand...

Not when a new species is emerging it doesn't.  Let's take humans for instance.  Humans from 10,000 years ago have the same physiology as humans today.  Very little has changed.  Which is the reason the fossil record doesn't capture the transitions.  There aren't any.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.
> 
> These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.
> 
> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly



I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation.  I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise.  I said:

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​


----------



## ding

Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[8] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. 









						Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding

A year before their 1972 Eldredge and Gould paper, Niles Eldredge published a paper in the journal _Evolution_ which suggested that gradual evolution was seldom seen in the fossil record and argued that Ernst Mayr's standard mechanism of allopatric speciation might suggest a possible resolution.[6] 









						Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.
> 
> These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.
> 
> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation.  I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise.  I said:
> 
> The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​
Click to expand...

*
Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,*

Why not?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.
> 
> These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.
> 
> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation.  I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise.  I said:
> 
> The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​
Click to expand...

I see that you are ignoring the failure of the usual ID'iot creationer "the odds are too great", weasel. 

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._

Not surprisingly, the religious extremists have only ''the gawds did it" as an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. That is not an argument but simply an appeal to fear and superstition.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Actually, Nick Matzke has done some research on this very topic.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242594653_Evolution_in_Brownian_space_a_model_for_the_origin_of_the_bacterial_flagellum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you’re not aware of the processes of science, it involves a process of hypotheses, theories and testing to see if the model survives rigorous experimentation.
> 
> Otherwise, we’re still waiting for publication of that “_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”*_
> 
> That seems fair. It’s fair that ID’iot creationer claims to supernatural gods meet the same standard of review that the relevant sciences are subject to.
> 
> So, when can we see the ID’iot creationer data supporting a flat earth, creation by supernatural gods, talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old?



Thank you for yet another hypothetical model story predicated on the presupposition of naturalism, and why did you attach it to a post of mine regarding biochemical engineering?

_cricket's chirping_


----------



## ding

My last comment is that when the ticking time bomb of punctuated equilibrium explodes upon the scene all at once all across the species, the birth of the new species is indistinguishable from the originating species.  What they end up becoming is not at all obvious from their early years.  It is only when it has matured can the new species be seen for what it is.  Hence there won't be any transitional fossils.


----------



## ding

Sort of like it was programmed to emerge.


----------



## ding

Nature filling voids doesn't seem like a random behavior.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.
> 
> These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.
> 
> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation.  I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise.  I said:
> 
> The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​
Click to expand...


"Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,''

Of course they do. This was addressed for you earlier.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Not when a new species is emerging it doesn't.


False. Example: two isolated populations of one species undergo gradual changes until they are distinct species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Nature filling voids doesn't seem like a random behavior.


Because it isn't. Selection isn't random.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Nick Matzke has done some research on this very topic.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242594653_Evolution_in_Brownian_space_a_model_for_the_origin_of_the_bacterial_flagellum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you’re not aware of the processes of science, it involves a process of hypotheses, theories and testing to see if the model survives rigorous experimentation.
> 
> Otherwise, we’re still waiting for publication of that “_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”*_
> 
> That seems fair. It’s fair that ID’iot creationer claims to supernatural gods meet the same standard of review that the relevant sciences are subject to.
> 
> So, when can we see the ID’iot creationer data supporting a flat earth, creation by supernatural gods, talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for yet another hypothetical model story predicated on the presupposition of naturalism, and why did you attach it to a post of mine regarding biochemical engineering?
> 
> _cricket's chirping_
Click to expand...

I see that you become completely flummoxed when your specious claims are met with a supported rebuttal.

While you’re not aware of the processes of science, it involves a process of hypotheses, theories and testing to see if the model survives rigorous experimentation. The data in the works prepared by Nick Matzke are a direct rebuttal to your unsupported claims. This is all very typical for ID'iot creationers. While you revile science, you seek to shelter yourself under a burqa of fear and ignorance. Your entire participation in this thread, in typical ID'iot creationer fashion, is to try and find a small crack in the science data and then spackle your gods into that crack.

Otherwise, we’re still waiting for publication of that “_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,*
> 
> Why not?



I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.

I'll break my observation down with you. . . .

First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions?  Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous  copy or a pseudogene)?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,*
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.
> 
> I'll break my observation down with you. . . .
> 
> First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions?  Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous  copy or a pseudogene)?
Click to expand...


*it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)? *

So a mutation can't add new information because it'll kill you or it'll be non-functional?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,*
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.
> 
> I'll break my observation down with you. . . .
> 
> First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions?  Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous  copy or a pseudogene)?
Click to expand...

Just make your point. Tell us why mutations cannot add new information. Then we will all laugh at you and point back to the explanation earlier in the thread.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,*
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.
> 
> I'll break my observation down with you. . . .
> 
> First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions?  Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous  copy or a pseudogene)?
Click to expand...


It seems the relevant science work disagrees with you and those at the Henry Morris Madrassah.

Shirley, you can provide some research data from AIG or Harun Yahya to support your position. 

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information | New Scientist


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,*
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.
> 
> I'll break my observation down with you. . . .
> 
> First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions?  Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous  copy or a pseudogene)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)? *
> 
> So a mutation can't add new information because it'll kill you or it'll be non-functional?
Click to expand...


I didn't say that.  This is precisely why I'm breaking things down with you.  All I'm asking you right now:  do you agree  that the above is an apt summary of the standard model regarding gene duplication?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,*
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.
> 
> I'll break my observation down with you. . . .
> 
> First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions?  Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous  copy or a pseudogene)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)? *
> 
> So a mutation can't add new information because it'll kill you or it'll be non-functional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  This is precisely why I'm breaking things down with you.  All I'm asking you right now:  do you agree  that the above is an apt summary of the standard model regarding gene duplication?
Click to expand...


Gene duplication adds information.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,*
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.
> 
> I'll break my observation down with you. . . .
> 
> First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions?  Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous  copy or a pseudogene)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)? *
> 
> So a mutation can't add new information because it'll kill you or it'll be non-functional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  This is precisely why I'm breaking things down with you.  All I'm asking you right now:  do you agree  that the above is an apt summary of the standard model regarding gene duplication?
Click to expand...

What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> smh.  You are going in circles instead of admitting you lost the argument.  Your own writing betrays you.



More BS, James, and what's most hilarious is that you're unwittingly contradicting the historical architects  of the Kalam Cosmological Argument with which you supposedly agree, indeed, unwittingly contradicting the logical, mathematical and empirical imperatives on which it's predicated.

I  suspect you got this mathematical monstrosity_—_i.e., that an actual infinite only exists in the supernatural world_—_from a  misunderstanding of the _qualitative_ infinity of classical theism or from Aristotle's notion, which in his mind had nothing to do with the conceptual existentiality of an actual infinite, but had to do with his mistaken notion of the eternality of time. 

Once again, James, what, precisely, is the  definitively final, real/actual value of the surreal number *∞*?  Where precisely does this surreal number take on a definitively final, real/actual value in the supernatural world?

It's a mathematical concept of quantitative boundlessness only, James.  It's not a definitively final value! 


More to the point, precisely how does the mathematical concept of infinity (which denotes a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something) exist in anything other than minds?


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?



Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited *"The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations"*, a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.

I think you better review your own citation in *post #126*. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?

I got to tell ya, between you, *Hollie*, and *James*, it's been a real hoot today.  Of course, *abu afak's* ignorance regarding the origin of the  self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.

By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too.    I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis has been proven to be impossible via the swan neck experiment.
> 
> 
> 
> Lie.
Click to expand...


The scientific method does not lie and is repeatable.  One of the strongest arguments creationists have for no intelligent aliens and no organisms on Mars.  If I was an atheist, then I'd have to question abiogenesis as something people thought happen like spontaneous generation, but science disproved it.


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  You are going in circles instead of admitting you lost the argument.  Your own writing betrays you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More BS, James, and what's most hilarious is that you're unwittingly contradicting the historical architects  of the Kalam Cosmological Argument with which you supposedly agree, indeed, unwittingly contradicting the logical, mathematical and empirical imperatives on which it's predicated.
> 
> I  suspect you got this mathematical monstrosity_—_i.e., that an actual infinite only exists in the supernatural world_—_from a  misunderstanding of the _qualitative_ infinity of classical theism or from Aristotle's notion, which in his mind had nothing to do with the conceptual existentiality of an actual infinite, but had to do with his mistaken notion of the eternality of time.
> 
> Once again, James, what, precisely, is the  definitively final, real/actual value of the surreal number *∞*?  Where precisely does this surreal number take on a definitively final, real/actual value in the supernatural world?
> 
> It's a mathematical concept of quantitative boundlessness only, James.  It's not a definitively final value!
> 
> 
> More to the point, precisely how does the mathematical concept of infinity (which denotes a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something) exist in anything other than minds?
Click to expand...


How can you call BS when Aristotle backs me up?  Logic and sound reasoning back me up.  CK Chesterton and Karl Popper back me up.  I don't know why you do not get it.  You ask me what is the actual value of infinity and I already told you it does not exist in the natural world.  Atheists and their scientists seem to have mixed up potential infinity with actual infinity for they believe in singularity.  How does it have an actual value in the supernatural world?  By God.  God is infinite.  His power and presence is infinite.  The afterlife is infinite.  Space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here because of the creator.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> If it's OK with you, I'll manage the various gods on an as-needed basis.



One doesn't manage God.  You are terribly ignorant on the subject despite all the discussions we had.  For example, you think there are multiple gods.  Thus, I ask you questions about evolution and get very little answers.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. You can say "gods did it!", but that is still a form of abiogenesis. Life from no life.



That's really dumb.  Like I said before, your punishment will be watch to see if abiogenesis happens for billions of years.  When it doesn't happen, then you get to watch for more billions of years.  I don't think you understand how long is a billion years or million years.  With all the catastrophism, the Earth can't possibly last that long.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited *"The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations"*, a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.
> 
> I think you better review your own citation in *post #126*. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?
> 
> I got to tell ya, between you, *Hollie*, and *James*, it's been a real hoot today.  Of course, *abu afak's* ignorance regarding the origin of the  self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.
> 
> By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too.    I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.
Click to expand...

That’s actually pretty funny, You claim to have read a paper you obviously never read.

You also claim knowledge of matters related to science you obviously don’t have and have never studied.

Sans any training in the matters of science, you are sans an objective opinion. 

I’m afraid you are just a clone of the Disco’tute clowns in the silly YouTube video you opened this thread with.  You don’t see the absurdity that charlatans with no background in the biological sciences are yattering about  the impossibility of biological evolution.  You have become a hand-me-down charlatan, an accomplice to the buffoonery of Disco’tute charlatans.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature filling voids doesn't seem like a random behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it isn't. Selection isn't random.
Click to expand...

That's because nature isn't random.  But you still seem to be ignoring that it happens all at once across the species in unison.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's OK with you, I'll manage the various gods on an as-needed basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't manage God.  You are terribly ignorant on the subject despite all the discussions we had.  For example, you think there are multiple gods.  Thus, I ask you questions about evolution and get very little answers.
Click to expand...

One actually does manage the gods.

All the gods ever invented have been invented by humans. I would agree that Christians, like other inventors of gods, managed to create their gods and slather those gods with human attributes and then cower in fear before those gods. Christians have even invented their gods with competitors, of a fashion in characters as you have described as men in red onion skin outfits.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when a new species is emerging it doesn't. Let's take humans for instance. Humans from 10,000 years ago have the same physiology as humans today. Very little has changed. Which is the reason the fossil record doesn't capture the transitions. There aren't any.
> 
> 
> 
> False. Example: two isolated populations of one species undergo gradual changes until they are distinct species.
Click to expand...

Punctuated equilibrium and the fossil record say otherwise.  So does 10,000 years of human evolution.

Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[8] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

A year before their 1972 Eldredge and Gould paper, Niles Eldredge published a paper in the journal _Evolution_ which suggested that gradual evolution was seldom seen in the fossil record and argued that Ernst Mayr's standard mechanism of allopatric speciation might suggest a possible resolution.[6] 









						Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited *"The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations"*, a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.
> 
> I think you better review your own citation in *post #126*. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?
> 
> I got to tell ya, between you, *Hollie*, and *James*, it's been a real hoot today.  Of course, *abu afak's* ignorance regarding the origin of the  self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.
> 
> By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too.    I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.
Click to expand...


I’ll take your usual sidestep around another completely ignorant comment about something you call “the standard model regarding gene duplication'' as just another gaffe in a long line of gaffes.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> How can you call BS when Aristotle backs me up?  Logic and sound reasoning back me up.  CK Chesterton and Karl Popper back me up.  I don't know why you do not get it.  You ask me what is the actual value of infinity and I already told you it does not exist in the natural world.  Atheists and their scientists seem to have mixed up potential infinity with actual infinity for they believe in singularity.  How does it have an actual value in the supernatural world?  By God.  God is infinite.  His power and presence is infinite.  The afterlife is infinite.  Space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here because of the creator.



I just showed you in the above that Aristotle DOES NOT back you up!  C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper do not back you up either, and you cannot provide any citation showing that they ever held to the idiotic notion that the actually infinite exist outside of mnds.   An actual infinity is a mathematical concept of quantity, _not_ a  theological concept of quality. 

God is NOT an actual infinite!  God is NOT an actual infinite!  God is NOT an actual infinite!  

I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain.   I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain. 

*For the third time, the qualitative infinity of classical theism has absolutely nothing to do with the quantitative infinities of mathematics.  They are categorically distinct things.  Stop conflating them.  *

God is not an infinitely divisible composite, as if he were a being of physical magnitude comprised of parts.  When we say that God is infinite, we do _not_ mean that he is an actual infinite or actually infinite, anymore than we mean that he is a potential infinite or potentially infinite.  Potential and actual infinities  are mathematical concepts of quantity, not theological concepts of quality. 

Hence, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's an indivisibly perfect being of incomparable greatness.     

The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.  The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.

This mathematical concept only exists in minds.   This mathematical concept only exists in minds.

I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time. I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time. 



james bond said:


> I already told you it [the actually infinite] does not exist in the natural world.



And I have told you now for at least the third time that your assertion is false, but because you will not think or be taught, you keep repeating the same mindless blathersmack.  Human beings are part of nature.  This mathematical concept exists in our minds, just as it exists in the minds of angels and in the mind of God.  What you should be saying is that the actually infinite does not exist in the natural world outside of minds, as only the potentially infinite has existentiality outside of minds. 



james bond said:


> The afterlife is infinite.



God is eternal, timelessly existing forever without beginning or end.  You might say that God is the Eternal Now.  The afterlife for us is everlasting, without end.  Mathematically, at any given moment in time or being, our afterlives will also be a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, precisely because there will always be more and more in the future.  Our afterlives will never be an actual infinite because the actually infinite is always being approached, but never reached.  Once again, an actual infinite only exists as a mathematical concept of boundlessness in minds , never as a concretely realized state of being outside of minds.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.
> 
> These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.
> 
> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation.  I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise.  I said:
> 
> The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​
Click to expand...


*Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,*

Still looking for your proof?


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you call BS when Aristotle backs me up?  Logic and sound reasoning back me up.  CK Chesterton and Karl Popper back me up.  I don't know why you do not get it.  You ask me what is the actual value of infinity and I already told you it does not exist in the natural world.  Atheists and their scientists seem to have mixed up potential infinity with actual infinity for they believe in singularity.  How does it have an actual value in the supernatural world?  By God.  God is infinite.  His power and presence is infinite.  The afterlife is infinite.  Space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here because of the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed you in the above that Aristotle DOES NOT back you up!  C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper do not back you up either, and you cannot provide any citation showing that they ever held to the idiotic notion that the actually infinite exist outside of mnds.   An actual infinity is a mathematical concept of quantity, _not_ a  theological concept of quality.
> 
> God is NOT an actual infinite!  God is NOT an actual infinite!  God is NOT an actual infinite!
> 
> I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain.   I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain.
> 
> *For the third time, the qualitative infinity of classical theism has absolutely nothing to do with the quantitative infinities of mathematics.  They are categorically distinct things.  Stop conflating them.  *
> 
> God is not an infinitely divisible composite, as if he were a being of physical magnitude comprised of parts.  When we say that God is infinite, we do _not_ mean that he is an actual infinite or actually infinite, anymore than we mean that he is a potential infinite or potentially infinite.  Potential and actual infinities  are mathematical concepts of quantity, not theological concepts of quality.
> 
> Hence, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's an indivisibly perfect being of incomparable greatness.
> 
> The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.  The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.
> 
> This mathematical concept only exists in minds.   This mathematical concept only exists in minds.
> 
> I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time. I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you it [the actually infinite] does not exist in the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have told you now for at least the third time that your assertion is false, but because you will not think or be taught, you keep repeating the same mindless blathersmack.  Human beings are part of nature.  This mathematical concept exists in our minds, just as it exists in the minds of angels and in the mind of God.  What you should be saying is that the actually infinite does not exist in the natural world outside of minds, as only the potentially infinite has existentiality outside of minds.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The afterlife is infinite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is eternal, timelessly existing forever without beginning or end.  You might say that God is the Eternal Now.  The afterlife for us is everlasting, without end.  Mathematically, at any given moment in time or being, our afterlives will also be a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, precisely because there will always be more and more in the future.  Our afterlives will never be an actual infinite because the actually infinite is always being approached, but never reached.  Once again, an actual infinite only exists as a mathematical concept of boundlessness in minds , never as a concretely realized state of being outside of minds.
Click to expand...


You are such a stubborn nutgoober who is enamored with his own thoughts.  Just because it exists in your mind doesn't make it real.  Have you heard about imagination?  I have to deal with the sick atheists here and they cannot be convinced.  People and I do not know what you are talking about anymore.  You should've stopped with the KCA Parts I and II.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you call BS when Aristotle backs me up?  Logic and sound reasoning back me up.  CK Chesterton and Karl Popper back me up.  I don't know why you do not get it.  You ask me what is the actual value of infinity and I already told you it does not exist in the natural world.  Atheists and their scientists seem to have mixed up potential infinity with actual infinity for they believe in singularity.  How does it have an actual value in the supernatural world?  By God.  God is infinite.  His power and presence is infinite.  The afterlife is infinite.  Space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here because of the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed you in the above that Aristotle DOES NOT back you up!  C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper do not back you up either, and you cannot provide any citation showing that they ever held to the idiotic notion that the actually infinite exist outside of mnds.   An actual infinity is a mathematical concept of quantity, _not_ a  theological concept of quality.
> 
> God is NOT an actual infinite!  God is NOT an actual infinite!  God is NOT an actual infinite!
> 
> I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain.   I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain.
> 
> *For the third time, the qualitative infinity of classical theism has absolutely nothing to do with the quantitative infinities of mathematics.  They are categorically distinct things.  Stop conflating them.  *
> 
> God is not an infinitely divisible composite, as if he were a being of physical magnitude comprised of parts.  When we say that God is infinite, we do _not_ mean that he is an actual infinite or actually infinite, anymore than we mean that he is a potential infinite or potentially infinite.  Potential and actual infinities  are mathematical concepts of quantity, not theological concepts of quality.
> 
> Hence, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's an indivisibly perfect being of incomparable greatness.
> 
> The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.  The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.
> 
> This mathematical concept only exists in minds.   This mathematical concept only exists in minds.
> 
> I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time. I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you it [the actually infinite] does not exist in the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have told you now for at least the third time that your assertion is false, but because you will not think or be taught, you keep repeating the same mindless blathersmack.  Human beings are part of nature.  This mathematical concept exists in our minds, just as it exists in the minds of angels and in the mind of God.  What you should be saying is that the actually infinite does not exist in the natural world outside of minds, as only the potentially infinite has existentiality outside of minds.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The afterlife is infinite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is eternal, timelessly existing forever without beginning or end.  You might say that God is the Eternal Now.  The afterlife for us is everlasting, without end.  Mathematically, at any given moment in time or being, our afterlives will also be a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, precisely because there will always be more and more in the future.  Our afterlives will never be an actual infinite because the actually infinite is always being approached, but never reached.  Once again, an actual infinite only exists as a mathematical concept of boundlessness in minds , never as a concretely realized state of being outside of minds.
Click to expand...


“_God is eternal, timelessly existing forever without beginning or end_.”

The above is precisely why religious extremists are so revolted by science and the pursuit of knowledge. Science discovery and knowledge are a direct threat to their beliefs in various gods. Evolution is concerned with the mechanisms driving the diversity of life. Evolution is a process that has been on-going for billions of years which is in direct contradiction to a young earth and supernatural creation. This is why “Darwinism” is attacked ruthlessly by the Christian extremists. The ultimate origins of the universe, gods, devils, angels, etc., are simply not an issue for evolutionary processes as those processes work regardless of how the universe got here.

Incidentally, It is not necessarily the case that the various gods have to be eternal. That assumption comes with the _presumption_ that time goes on forever, and that the universe exists somewhere along a presumed infinite span of time. There is no reason to presume that time has a form of independent existence, but is actually another component of the universe along with space and energy and matter. The origins of the universe are unknown but scientists have learned not to rely on simple assumptions about properties such as gravity and time.

It is also true that it is not a scientific or mathematical impossibility for life to have been sparked from non-living material. Not surprisingly, it is the religious extremists who make that claim. I have never read a study in which a geneticist, biologist (outside of the ID’iot creationer ministries), or NASA calculated the odds of life forming as being zero. Our very young exploration of the universe means it is not possible to make _any_ meaningful calculations of “odds against life off of this planet” without a detailed model. A sufficiently detailed model does not exist. There is nothing yet discovered to exclude the possibility that biological life coukd be highly probable across the universe under the right conditions. Similarly, there is nothing yet discovered to presume the Earth is the only place where biological life exists. In either case, evolution deals with what happens after biological life begins.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you call BS when Aristotle backs me up?  Logic and sound reasoning back me up.  CK Chesterton and Karl Popper back me up.  I don't know why you do not get it.  You ask me what is the actual value of infinity and I already told you it does not exist in the natural world.  Atheists and their scientists seem to have mixed up potential infinity with actual infinity for they believe in singularity.  How does it have an actual value in the supernatural world?  By God.  God is infinite.  His power and presence is infinite.  The afterlife is infinite.  Space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here because of the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed you in the above that Aristotle DOES NOT back you up!  C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper do not back you up either, and you cannot provide any citation showing that they ever held to the idiotic notion that the actually infinite exist outside of mnds.   An actual infinity is a mathematical concept of quantity, _not_ a  theological concept of quality.
> 
> God is NOT an actual infinite!  God is NOT an actual infinite!  God is NOT an actual infinite!
> 
> I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain.   I'm repeating myself because the mathematical and theological realities of the matter are not sinking into your brain.
> 
> *For the third time, the qualitative infinity of classical theism has absolutely nothing to do with the quantitative infinities of mathematics.  They are categorically distinct things.  Stop conflating them.  *
> 
> God is not an infinitely divisible composite, as if he were a being of physical magnitude comprised of parts.  When we say that God is infinite, we do _not_ mean that he is an actual infinite or actually infinite, anymore than we mean that he is a potential infinite or potentially infinite.  Potential and actual infinities  are mathematical concepts of quantity, not theological concepts of quality.
> 
> Hence, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's an indivisibly perfect being of incomparable greatness.
> 
> The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.  The actually infinite strictly pertains to the mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ to a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something.
> 
> This mathematical concept only exists in minds.   This mathematical concept only exists in minds.
> 
> I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time. I'm repeating myself again so that these things might sink into your brain this time.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you it [the actually infinite] does not exist in the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have told you now for at least the third time that your assertion is false, but because you will not think or be taught, you keep repeating the same mindless blathersmack.  Human beings are part of nature.  This mathematical concept exists in our minds, just as it exists in the minds of angels and in the mind of God.  What you should be saying is that the actually infinite does not exist in the natural world outside of minds, as only the potentially infinite has existentiality outside of minds.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The afterlife is infinite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is eternal, timelessly existing forever without beginning or end.  You might say that God is the Eternal Now.  The afterlife for us is everlasting, without end.  Mathematically, at any given moment in time or being, our afterlives will also be a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, precisely because there will always be more and more in the future.  Our afterlives will never be an actual infinite because the actually infinite is always being approached, but never reached.  Once again, an actual infinite only exists as a mathematical concept of boundlessness in minds , never as a concretely realized state of being outside of minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such a stubborn nutgoober who is enamored with his own thoughts.  Just because it exists in your mind doesn't make it real.  Have you heard about imagination?  I have to deal with the sick atheists here and they cannot be convinced.  People and I do not know what you are talking about anymore.  You should've stopped with the KCA Parts I and II.
Click to expand...

Apparently, it is not just sick atheists who cannot be convinced of your gods but all those sick people who believe in competing gods. I suspect some of those believers in gods competing with your gods think you’re pretty sick.

lovely, lovely folks you angry religion’istas.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> You are such a stubborn nutgoober who is enamored with his own thoughts.  Just because it exists in your mind doesn't make it real.  Have you heard about imagination?  I have to deal with the sick atheists here and they cannot be convinced.  People and I do not know what you are talking about anymore.  You should've stopped with the KCA Parts I and II.



You don't grasp what I'm talking about because *you're still conflating the qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities (potential and actual) of mathematics in your mind.   They are categorically distinct.  Stop conflating them. *


----------



## ding

It's mind blowing how evolution explodes across a species all at once in unison to create a new species.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> It's mind blowing how evolution explodes across a species all at once in unison to create a new species.



That's because is doesn't ... it starts with a single mutation in a single individual ... only this individual's offspring will carry the improved genetic material ... *IF* this mutation improves reproductive capacity, *THEN* the mutation will eventually spread throughout the population ... and this takes many many generations ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's mind blowing how evolution explodes across a species all at once in unison to create a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because is doesn't ... it starts with a single mutation in a single individual ... only this individual's offspring will carry the improved genetic material ... *IF* this mutation improves reproductive capacity, *THEN* the mutation will eventually spread throughout the population ... and this takes many many generations ...
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to be what the fossil record suggests.   Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> That's because is doesn't ... it starts with a single mutation in a single individual ... only this individual's offspring will carry the improved genetic material ... *IF* this mutation improves reproductive capacity, *THEN* the mutation will eventually spread throughout the population ... and this takes many many generations ...



Um... natural selection isn't evolution.  It does not happen b/c of the fairy tale of mutation.  It happens fairly rapidly from the filtering of the genetic information that already exists and we can observe it.  A good example, one can observe is natural selection of plants as it changes rapidly to their environment.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited *"The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations"*, a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.
> 
> I think you better review your own citation in *post #126*. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?
> 
> I got to tell ya, between you, *Hollie*, and *James*, it's been a real hoot today.  Of course, *abu afak's* ignorance regarding the origin of the  self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.
> 
> By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too.    I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ll take your usual sidestep around another completely ignorant comment about something you call “the standard model regarding gene duplication'' as just another gaffe in a long line of gaffes.
Click to expand...


 

It's *YOUR post* *(post #126),* dummy, not mine, in which the classical model of gene duplication, as opposed to the DDC model of gene duplication, is firstly referred to as "the standard scenario".  So now we see that you didn't only fail to understand your copy-and-paste response to my original prose of first-hand knowledge, but that you didn't go back and read your copy-and-paste as I advised you to do.  Further, I didn't write in the above _the standard model_, but _the standard/classical model_ per your post and for your benefit.


----------



## Hollie

N


james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because is doesn't ... it starts with a single mutation in a single individual ... only this individual's offspring will carry the improved genetic material ... *IF* this mutation improves reproductive capacity, *THEN* the mutation will eventually spread throughout the population ... and this takes many many generations ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um... natural selection isn't evolution.  It does not happen b/c of the fairy tale of mutation.  It happens fairly rapidly from the filtering of the genetic information that already exists and we can observe it.  A good example, one can observe is natural selection of plants as it changes rapidly to their environment.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know how you explain your conspiracy theories about natural selection somehow not being a part of biological evolution when the data clearly and demonstrably refutes your conspiracy theory.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited *"The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations"*, a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.
> 
> I think you better review your own citation in *post #126*. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?
> 
> I got to tell ya, between you, *Hollie*, and *James*, it's been a real hoot today.  Of course, *abu afak's* ignorance regarding the origin of the  self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.
> 
> By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too.    I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ll take your usual sidestep around another completely ignorant comment about something you call “the standard model regarding gene duplication'' as just another gaffe in a long line of gaffes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR post* *(post #126),* dummy, not mine, in which the classical model of gene duplication, as opposed to the DDC model of gene duplication, is firstly referred to as "the standard scenerior".  So now we see that you didn't only fail to understand your copy-and-paste response to my original prose of first-hand knowledge, but that you didn't go back and read your copy-and-paste as I advised you to do.  Further, I didn't write in the above _the standard model_, but _the standard/classical model_ per your post and for your benefit.
Click to expand...

I can see you're angry and emotive but your outbursts are merely an attempt to sidestep explaining what your invented "standard model regarding gene duplication'', actually is. 

A citation from the Disco'tute perhaps?


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Gene duplication adds information.



On the classical model of gene duplication:  new information?!  Are you sure?  Don't you mean  adaptively new/enhanced functions?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> It happens fairly rapidly from the filtering of the genetic information that already exists and we can observe it.



Obviously. What was filtered out to create nylonase?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gene duplication adds information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the classical model of gene duplication:  new information?!  Are you sure?  Don't you mean new/enhanced functions?
Click to expand...


*On the classical model of gene duplication: new information?!  *

A duplicated gene isn't new information?

What if the original gene now mutates?

Is that new information?

Oops, both genes mutate, new information yet?

* Don't you mean new/enhanced functions?*

Do new genes allow new functions?


----------



## Hollie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gene duplication adds information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the classical model of gene duplication:  new information?!  Are you sure?  Don't you mean new/enhanced functions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *On the classical model of gene duplication: new information?!  *
> 
> A duplicated gene isn't new information?
> 
> What if the original gene now mutates?
> 
> Is that new information?
> 
> Oops, both genes mutate, new information yet?
> 
> * Don't you mean new/enhanced functions?*
> 
> Do new genes allow new functions?
Click to expand...

What does the Bible tell us about gene function?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> . If I was an atheist, then I'd have to question abiogenesis as something people thought happen like spontaneous generation,


Hahahhaha


So if you wer an atheist, what magic would you propose for abiogenesis?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> It's mind blowing how evolution explodes across a species all at once in unison to create a new species.


 That would still take quite a bit of time, compared to our short lifetimes. But yes, it is fascinating. But understandable. If a trait makes some individuals much more likely to breed, then it (dominance of new traits over a population) could happen relatively quickly. In this way two isolated populations of one species could relatively quickly diverge into two species.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited *"The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations"*, a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.
> 
> I think you better review your own citation in *post #126*. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?
> 
> I got to tell ya, between you, *Hollie*, and *James*, it's been a real hoot today.  Of course, *abu afak's* ignorance regarding the origin of the  self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.
> 
> By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too.    I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ll take your usual sidestep around another completely ignorant comment about something you call “the standard model regarding gene duplication'' as just another gaffe in a long line of gaffes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR post* *(post #126),* dummy, not mine, in which the classical model of gene duplication, as opposed to the DDC model of gene duplication, is firstly referred to as "the standard scenario".  So now we see that you didn't only fail to understand your copy-and-paste response to my original prose of first-hand knowledge, but that you didn't go back and read your copy-and-paste as I advised you to do.  Further, I didn't write in the above _the standard model_, but _the standard/classical model_ per your post and for your benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see you're angry and emotive but your outbursts are merely an attempt to sidestep explaining what your invented "standard model regarding gene duplication'', actually is.
> 
> A citation from the Disco'tute perhaps?
Click to expand...


Well, I see that you want to do back to my poetry.  I knew you liked it!

Let us go then, you and me,
And stroll beneath a cloudy sea
As evening spreads across its face like a toothless grin.
Let us go a-meandering down narrow-minded suburban lanes,
Silky slick with sullen rains
And hemmed in by redundant four-bedroom stalls and grated sewage drains;
Past the immaculate parks and the quaint, steepled churches,
the lofty perches,​Where the vagabond Riffraff lurches in the pristine shadows:
A restless Crowd that chases dreams of easy grace and meadows,
And sings a melancholy hymn, a petulant brew, that lingers at your nervebone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.


But is seen. Also: abrupt speciation with gradual evolution can occur. Of course" "gradual" is relative and subjective.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> But is seen. Also: abrupt speciation with gradual evolution can occur. Of course" "gradual" is relative and subjective.
Click to expand...

But not the rule.  The rule is abrupt.  Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.  Gradual evolution is the exception to the rule as observed in the fossil record.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's mind blowing how evolution explodes across a species all at once in unison to create a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> That would still take quite a bit of time, compared to our short lifetimes. But yes, it is fascinating. But understandable. If a trait makes some individuals much more likely to breed, then it (dominance of new traits over a population) could happen relatively quickly. In this way two isolated populations of one species could relatively quickly diverge into two species.
Click to expand...

I don't believe so.  All it takes is one generation.  Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> But is seen. Also: abrupt speciation with gradual evolution can occur. Of course" "gradual" is relative and subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not the rule.  The rule is abrupt.  Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.  Gradual evolution is the exception to the rule as observed in the fossil record.
Click to expand...

Yes, but "abrupt" can literally mean 100,000 years. Also, when teo isolated populations diverge gradually, you will have the case where individuals from pop A and individuals of the new, distinct species from pop B are found very close to one another, temporally, in the fossil record. All very cool stuff. It seems to be one of the forefronts of biology today. Not disagreeing with you. It shows us what it shows us.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited *"The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations"*, a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.
> 
> I think you better review your own citation in *post #126*. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?
> 
> I got to tell ya, between you, *Hollie*, and *James*, it's been a real hoot today.  Of course, *abu afak's* ignorance regarding the origin of the  self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.
> 
> By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too.    I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ll take your usual sidestep around another completely ignorant comment about something you call “the standard model regarding gene duplication'' as just another gaffe in a long line of gaffes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR post* *(post #126),* dummy, not mine, in which the classical model of gene duplication, as opposed to the DDC model of gene duplication, is firstly referred to as "the standard scenario".  So now we see that you didn't only fail to understand your copy-and-paste response to my original prose of first-hand knowledge, but that you didn't go back and read your copy-and-paste as I advised you to do.  Further, I didn't write in the above _the standard model_, but _the standard/classical model_ per your post and for your benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see you're angry and emotive but your outbursts are merely an attempt to sidestep explaining what your invented "standard model regarding gene duplication'', actually is.
> 
> A citation from the Disco'tute perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I see that you want to do back to my poetry.  I knew you liked it!
> 
> Let us go then, you and me,
> And stroll beneath a cloudy sea
> As evening spreads across its face like a toothless grin.
> Let us go a-meandering down narrow-minded suburban lanes,
> Silky slick with sullen rains
> And hemmed in by redundant four-bedroom stalls and grated sewage drains;
> Past the immaculate parks and the quaint, steepled churches,
> the lofty perches,​Where the vagabond Riffraff lurches in the pristine shadows:
> A restless Crowd that chases dreams of easy grace and meadows,
> And sings a melancholy hymn, a petulant brew, that lingers at your nervebone.
Click to expand...

A rather poor attempt to sidestep refutations to your appeals to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> But is seen. Also: abrupt speciation with gradual evolution can occur. Of course" "gradual" is relative and subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not the rule.  The rule is abrupt.  Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.  Gradual evolution is the exception to the rule as observed in the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but "abrupt" can literally mean 100,000 years. Also, when teo isolated populations diverge gradually, you will have the case where individuals from pop A and individuals of the new, distinct species from pop B are found very close to one another, temporally, in the fossil record. All very cool stuff. It seems to be one of the forefronts of biology today. Not disagreeing with you. It shows us what it shows us.
Click to expand...

Again... I don't think so.   Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.  What you want to believe is not supported by the fossil record.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> I don't believe so. All it takes is one generation


I would be shocked to see or hear any scientist make this claim. One?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.


But you just said, "most", so we agree.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
> 
> 
> 
> But you just said, "most", so we agree.
Click to expand...

Not if you believe evolution is a gradual process we don't.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe so. All it takes is one generation
> 
> 
> 
> I would be shocked to see or hear any scientist make this claim. One?
Click to expand...

I don't see how speciation could be any other way.


----------



## Hollie

Shocking!

Eighteen pages into a creationer’s thread about Darwinism and math, yet, no math.


----------



## Ringtone

By the way, the above should read:

On the classical model of gene duplication:  new information?!  Are you sure?  Don't you mean *adaptively* new/enhanced functions?​
You beat me to my edit.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> A duplicated gene isn't new information?



No.  It's a duplicate of the preexisting information in the original.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> What if the original gene now mutates?  Is that new information?



Mutations entail a loss of information.  Most mutations are deleterious or neutral, but some are adaptive.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Oops, both genes mutate, new information yet?



Ditto * two!



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do new genes allow new functions?



Yes!  Especially those of the duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model in terms of frequency in adaptability and in preservation . .. eventually,, though most of those enhance the same function of the original gene in a more complex pathway.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> By the way, the above should read:
> 
> On the classical model of gene duplication:  new information?!  Are you sure?  Don't you mean *adaptively* new/enhanced functions?​
> You beat me to my edit.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A duplicated gene isn't new information?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's a duplicate of the preexisting information in the original.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the original gene now mutates?  Is that new information?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations entail a loss of information.  Most mutations are deleterious or neutral, but some are adaptive.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, both genes mutate, new information yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto * two!
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do new genes allow new functions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  Especially those of the duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model in terms of frequency in adaptability and in preservation.
Click to expand...


*Mutations entail a loss of information. *

You said that before.....but you still haven't posted any proof.

Oops, both genes mutate, loss of old information, addition of new information, right?


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Mutations entail a loss of information. *
> 
> You said that before.....but you still haven't posted any proof.
> 
> Oops, both genes mutate, loss of old information, addition of new information, right?



See above again.  Mutations entail a loss of preexisting information, but mutations of duplicate genes can give rise to new/enhanced functions, eventually, if preserved long enough to become adaptive.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Shocking!
> 
> Eighteen pages into a creationer’s thread about Darwinism and math, yet, no math.



Once again,  the math is presented in the video.  Shocking!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Mutations entail a loss of preexisting information,



And, usually, the creation of new information.

*but mutations of duplicate genes can give rise to new/enhanced functions, *

So, a mutation can be a gain of information.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It happens fairly rapidly from the filtering of the genetic information that already exists and we can observe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously. What was filtered out to create nylonase?
Click to expand...


Oh, welcome back.  Have you evolved in S&T haha?

In this case, it wasn't what was filtered out but in the design with plasmids.  It is further evidence for God.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> . If I was an atheist, then I'd have to question abiogenesis as something people thought happen like spontaneous generation,
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahhaha
> 
> 
> So if you wer an atheist, what magic would you propose for abiogenesis?
Click to expand...


Time to convert haha.

You can't beat the scientific method.  I never was sold on Miller-Urey.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It happens fairly rapidly from the filtering of the genetic information that already exists and we can observe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously. What was filtered out to create nylonase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, welcome back.  Have you evolved in S&T haha?
> 
> In this case, it wasn't what was filtered out but in the design with plasmids.  It is further evidence for God.
Click to expand...


*In this case, it wasn't what was filtered  *

So you were wrong, or you were lying?

*but in the design with plasmids. *

Design with plasmids created nylonase? Please tell me more.


----------



## Ringtone

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
> 
> 
> 
> But you just said, "most", so we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe evolution is a gradual process we don't.
Click to expand...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations entail a loss of preexisting information,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, usually, the creation of new information.
> 
> *but mutations of duplicate genes can give rise to new/enhanced functions, *
> 
> So, a mutation can be a gain of information.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shocking!
> 
> Eighteen pages into a creationer’s thread about Darwinism and math, yet, no math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again,  the math is presented in the video.  Shocking!
Click to expand...

ID’iot creationer math tends to be a bit of a variant of real math.

Shocking!

Perhaps you could advise how ID’iot creationer math refutes Darwinian theory. It will come as a surprise to you that Darwinian Theory addresses adaptation and change of biological organisms as a result of environmental factors.

Why did the Disco’tute clown show not include a biologist in a discussion of biology?

This might be the appropriate place for you to spam the thread with your goofy poetry.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations entail a loss of preexisting information,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, usually, the creation of new information.
> 
> *but mutations of duplicate genes can give rise to new/enhanced functions, *
> 
> So, a mutation can be a gain of information.
Click to expand...


Well, it depends on what you mean by new information, and that's where I have been trying to drive this discourse.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> By the way, the above should read:
> 
> On the classical model of gene duplication:  new information?!  Are you sure?  Don't you mean *adaptively* new/enhanced functions?​
> You beat me to my edit.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A duplicated gene isn't new information?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's a duplicate of the preexisting information in the original.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the original gene now mutates?  Is that new information?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations entail a loss of information.  Most mutations are deleterious or neutral, but some are adaptive.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, both genes mutate, new information yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto * two!
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do new genes allow new functions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  Especially those of the duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model in terms of frequency in adaptability and in preservation . .. eventually,, though most of those enhance the same function of the original gene in a more complex pathway.
Click to expand...


“_Mutations entail a loss of information. Most mutations are deleterious or neutral, but some are adaptive._”

What is the ID’iot creationer definition of “information”?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations entail a loss of preexisting information,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, usually, the creation of new information.
> 
> *but mutations of duplicate genes can give rise to new/enhanced functions, *
> 
> So, a mutation can be a gain of information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it depends on what you mean by new information, and that's where I have been trying to drive this discourse.
Click to expand...

What math information is a part of gene mutation?

You’re driving a train wreck.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations entail a loss of preexisting information,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, usually, the creation of new information.
> 
> *but mutations of duplicate genes can give rise to new/enhanced functions, *
> 
> So, a mutation can be a gain of information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it depends on what you mean by new information, and that's where I have been trying to drive this discourse.
Click to expand...


*Well, it depends on what you mean by new information, *

What do you mean by,  "*Mutations entail a loss of information*"?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
> 
> 
> 
> But you just said, "most", so we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe evolution is a gradual process we don't.
Click to expand...

I believe it is at times and so do you.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> That doesn't seem to be what the fossil record suggests.   Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.



I'm sure you can find a fossil bed that shows fast change over a "short" period of geologic time ... it can happen "quickly" ... but how many generations? ... if we have a diatom dividing every three hours, we can have a billion generations withoin the "short" period of time of a million years ... even among most mega-fauna, we see individuals reaching breeding age after a single year, very few are like humans with exceptionally long juvenile stages ... plus we need to remember the fossil record is horrifically incomplete, most organisms don't form fossils at all; the few that do, do so quite rarely ... and fossil beds are dated ± 100,000 years at best ... 

Look up whale evolution ... one of the few types where we do have a fairly complete fossil record ...


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
> 
> 
> 
> But you just said, "most", so we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe evolution is a gradual process we don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe it is at times and so do you.
Click to expand...

The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.


Sure it does. It supports the idea that evolution happens at all speeds.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't seem to be what the fossil record suggests.   Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you can find a fossil bed that shows fast change over a "short" period of geologic time ... it can happen "quickly" ... but how many generations? ... if we have a diatom dividing every three hours, we can have a billion generations withoin the "short" period of time of a million years ... even among most mega-fauna, we see individuals reaching breeding age after a single year, very few are like humans with exceptionally long juvenile stages ... plus we need to remember the fossil record is horrifically incomplete, most organisms don't form fossils at all; the few that do, do so quite rarely ... and fossil beds are dated ± 100,000 years at best ...
> 
> Look up whale evolution ... one of the few types where we do have a fairly complete fossil record ...
Click to expand...

Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.   Stasis is the norm.  There's something else at work.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It supports the idea that evolution happens at all speeds.
Click to expand...

That down plays what the fossil record is showing.  The fossil record shows fits and starts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It supports the idea that evolution happens at all speeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That down plays what the fossil record is showing.  The fossil record shows fits and starts.
Click to expand...

And gradual evolution. What puzzled Gould was the punctuated nature, bit even Gould never would have claimed there was sweeping change after one generation. He was comparing 10s of millions of years of stasis to changes that occured over "only" a few million years. He wanted to know why a species would stay the same for 10s of millions of years, then disappear from the fossil record, with new, related forms then appearing.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It happens fairly rapidly from the filtering of the genetic information that already exists and we can observe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously. What was filtered out to create nylonase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, welcome back.  Have you evolved in S&T haha?
> 
> In this case, it wasn't what was filtered out but in the design with plasmids.  It is further evidence for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In this case, it wasn't what was filtered  *
> 
> So you were wrong, or you were lying?
> 
> *but in the design with plasmids. *
> 
> Design with plasmids created nylonase? Please tell me more.
Click to expand...


I don't think you evolved in S&T.  Evolution is a lie; You're still looking for answers.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.



Why do you say this? ... did you look up whale evolution and see how these changes occurred over geological time scales? ... do you have an example of the fossil record showing a "quick" change to a species? ...

I'm not saying "commonly held beliefs" should be held with any kind of reverence ... you should know me better than that ... but it is upon you to discredit these views, not the other way around ...


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It supports the idea that evolution happens at all speeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That down plays what the fossil record is showing.  The fossil record shows fits and starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And gradual evolution. What puzzled Gould was the punctuated nature, bit even Gould never would have claimed there was sweeping change after one generation. He was comparing 10s of millions of years of stasis to changes that occured over "only" a few million years. He wanted to know why a species would stay the same for 10s of millions of years, then disappear from the fossil record, with new, related forms then appearing.
Click to expand...

Stasis isn't gradual evolution.  The lack of transitions coupled with stasis leads me to believe speciation is driven by genetic mutations and not natural selection.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say this? ... did you look up whale evolution and see how these changes occurred over geological time scales? ... do you have an example of the fossil record showing a "quick" change to a species? ...
> 
> I'm not saying "commonly held beliefs" should be held with any kind of reverence ... you should know me better than that ... but it is upon you to discredit these views, not the other way around ...
Click to expand...

I say this because I believe speciation is driven by genetic mutations and not natural selection.

Instead of looking at one species or another, I am taking a broader view.  I am trying to explain why stasis and lack of transitional fossils are the norm.  The best explanation I can come up with that fits the data is there are no transitions because speciation happens fast.  And for that to be the case, it must be wide spread genetic mutations driving the process.  Given that recent studies suggest that the food we eat can modify our genes and potentially our children’s, I don't think the possibility that widespread genetic mutations driving speciation should necessarily be discarded just because it goes against what Darwin believed.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> I say this because I believe speciation is driven by genetic mutations and not natural selection.



I believe you are categorically wrong here ... we're only concerned with genetic mutations that effect an individual's ability to fulfill its reproductive capacity ... more babies surviving to adulthood ... nothing else seems to matter ... consider a mutation that allows an individual to grow 50% larger, such that it is not preyed upon but kills any and all potential mates during the mating process, that mutation is dead-in-the-water as it will not be passed on to future generations ... 

Charles Darwin made some mistakes ... the Modern Synthesis very strictly defines "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" in terms of reproduction ... the more adult offspring, the more a positive inherited trait is passed on ... k > 0.5 ...



ding said:


> Instead of looking at one species or another, I am taking a broader view.  I am trying to explain why stasis and lack of transitional fossils are the norm.  The best explanation I can come up with that fits the data is there are no transitions because speciation happens fast.  And for that to be the case, it must be wide spread genetic mutations driving the process.  Given that recent studies suggest that the food we eat can modify our genes and potentially our children’s, I don't think the possibility that widespread genetic mutations driving speciation should necessarily be discarded just because it goes against what Darwin believed.



Do you have an example of the fossil record showing a "quick" change to a species (which species "fits the data")? ... I'm not discarding widespread mutations driving speciation in _all_ cases, but we need to be very careful how we're defining speciation ... not all outward physical changes are associated with the genetic material, human skin color is a good example where all of us have all the genetics needed to be Congolese Black all the way to Laplander White ... 

But let's use the less controversial example of the English Birch Moth ... in the year 1800, these moths were almost all white with a few black spots, perfect to blend into Birch bark, and this is considered the dominate genetic form, very few moths were the recessive jet black, and these moths tended to be eaten by birds before they could reproduce ... the filthy English started burning coal and vented the soot to the atmosphere, covering all the Birch trees making them jet black ... by 1900, the spotted white moths were all but gone, having been eaten by birds, only the jet black types remained as they were the ones to blend in with the Birch bark ... these are the *same* species in every way, just one shows dominate colors and the other shows recessive colors ... both types freely interbreed and thus form a single taxon ... England has cleaned up their act and the moths are reverting back to the spotted white forms again ...

Just a note, Charles Darwin self-published his _Origin of Species_, thus the tome does *NOT* qualify as scientific literature ... no peer review, no refereed publisher, and there are a few mistakes ... in 1859, one needed the Church of England's permission to read a paper into the minutes of the Royal Society, something evolution didn't have back then ... one of the more important reasons we created the United States of America with our freedom of religion ...


----------



## Ringtone

ding said:


> The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.



I agree.  While I do not for a moment believe that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation can produce anything even remotely close to the ubiquitous gain-of-function mutations required by evolutionary theory, gradualism is a no-go.  The paleontological record overwhelmingly depicts a biological history of continuity interspersed by abrupt spurts of speciation_—_that which would be expected if speciation via the underlying mechanism of punctuated equilibrium were true . . . or if speciation via a systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design were true.


----------



## Sunsettommy

ReinyDays said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...* in no way, shape or form preclude the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events*
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this a necessary factor? ... in many cases, the fossil record shows this isn't a step, the evolutionary change is smooth and without sudden jumps in adaptive change ...
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> In college I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on evolutionary biology ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? ... what grades did you carry in abstract mathematics ... or did you even take courses in such ... explain in mathematical terms why you disagree with the paper I posted? ... frankly, the way you focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism, I seriously doubt you've taken _any_ upper division biology ...
Click to expand...


By now you should realize you are dealing with a religious fanatic who is incapable of being honest and rational in replies, you should see how hard this man avoided answering my snotty questions to prove god exist,

*The Argument for God's Existence from Contingency*

His replies in his religion threads follow the same pattern, a bunch of quoted babbling replies and the refusal to make honset replies to questions posed.

He is brain dead religious fanatic, he is too far gone.


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> By now you should realize you are dealing with a religious fanatic who is incapable of being honest and rational in replies, you should see how hard this man avoided answering my snotty questions to prove god exist,
> 
> *The Argument for God's Existence from Contingency*
> 
> His replies in his religion threads follow the same pattern, a bunch of quoted babbling replies and the refusal to make honset replies to questions posed.
> 
> He is brain dead religious fanatic, he is too far gone.


By now at least one of you should have directly addressed the following, but haven't. . . .  The silence . . . except for the chirping of crickets is deafening.   

The burden of proof is on the religious fanatics of scientism to prove that naturalism/materialism is true against the observable evidence that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.

A chorus of crickets roll their eyes 
And beneath dance the cloudy skies.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say this because I believe speciation is driven by genetic mutations and not natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are categorically wrong here ... we're only concerned with genetic mutations that effect an individual's ability to fulfill its reproductive capacity ... more babies surviving to adulthood ... nothing else seems to matter ... consider a mutation that allows an individual to grow 50% larger, such that it is not preyed upon but kills any and all potential mates during the mating process, that mutation is dead-in-the-water as it will not be passed on to future generations ...
> 
> Charles Darwin made some mistakes ... the Modern Synthesis very strictly defines "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" in terms of reproduction ... the more adult offspring, the more a positive inherited trait is passed on ... k > 0.5 ...
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of looking at one species or another, I am taking a broader view.  I am trying to explain why stasis and lack of transitional fossils are the norm.  The best explanation I can come up with that fits the data is there are no transitions because speciation happens fast.  And for that to be the case, it must be wide spread genetic mutations driving the process.  Given that recent studies suggest that the food we eat can modify our genes and potentially our children’s, I don't think the possibility that widespread genetic mutations driving speciation should necessarily be discarded just because it goes against what Darwin believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an example of the fossil record showing a "quick" change to a species (which species "fits the data")? ... I'm not discarding widespread mutations driving speciation in _all_ cases, but we need to be very careful how we're defining speciation ... not all outward physical changes are associated with the genetic material, human skin color is a good example where all of us have all the genetics needed to be Congolese Black all the way to Laplander White ...
> 
> But let's use the less controversial example of the English Birch Moth ... in the year 1800, these moths were almost all white with a few black spots, perfect to blend into Birch bark, and this is considered the dominate genetic form, very few moths were the recessive jet black, and these moths tended to be eaten by birds before they could reproduce ... the filthy English started burning coal and vented the soot to the atmosphere, covering all the Birch trees making them jet black ... by 1900, the spotted white moths were all but gone, having been eaten by birds, only the jet black types remained as they were the ones to blend in with the Birch bark ... these are the *same* species in every way, just one shows dominate colors and the other shows recessive colors ... both types freely interbreed and thus form a single taxon ... England has cleaned up their act and the moths are reverting back to the spotted white forms again ...
> 
> Just a note, Charles Darwin self-published his _Origin of Species_, thus the tome does *NOT* qualify as scientific literature ... no peer review, no refereed publisher, and there are a few mistakes ... in 1859, one needed the Church of England's permission to read a paper into the minutes of the Royal Society, something evolution didn't have back then ... one of the more important reasons we created the United States of America with our freedom of religion ...
Click to expand...

I think I'd rather be categorically wrong and challenge the status quo then to not try to find the reason natural selection doesn't fit the data.  I'm not talking about individual mutations.  I am talking about mass mutations (all at or about the same time) within the species that led to a successful speciation.  Like I said before the stasis and the lack of transition is what I am trying to explain.  So those fossil records where there was no transition would be the examples of speciation from mass mutations.  Do I have a specific example?  No.  I didn't think I needed one.  Stasis is proof that natural selection did not lead to speciation.  Lack of transition can only be negated by finding transitions.  What examples should I use to confirm or refute this?


----------



## Sunsettommy

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heresy* ... there is no pre-Bible time line ... is this your own private religion or something? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis (first three chapters -- Genesis 1 Parallel Chapters) includes pre-time.  It wasn't in the Bible Timeline I shared.  It can be presented as such before 4000 BC.
> 
> What about the evolution timeline?  It's changed so often.  The Earth and universe gets older with each change.  Remember, you used to believe in an infinite universe.  That sounds like a fake timeline to me if you keep changing it at a drop of a hat.  Furthermore, when creationists date fossils using carbon dating (because they can), it isn't accepted because it doesn't fit your timeline.  Moreover, there is soft tissue still remaining.
Click to expand...


The "pre-time" is undefined thus useless......

ARCHBISHOP Ussher says,

The Ussher Chronology: The World Was Created in 4004 BCE

That is the bible timeline you never learned....., and it last only 4,100 years.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> By now at least one of you should have directly addressed the following, but haven't


Why should we? Check the scoreboard ya dummy.

Evolution:  eleventy zillion
Young Earth Creationist goobers: 0.

Overwhelming scientific consensus, accepted fact, taught at every reputable school and university on the planet.

We can literally sit here and do nothing and watch you flail. Nobody needs to feel any compulsion to explain to you the contents of a 7th grade science text.


----------



## ding

Sunsettommy said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...* in no way, shape or form preclude the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events*
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this a necessary factor? ... in many cases, the fossil record shows this isn't a step, the evolutionary change is smooth and without sudden jumps in adaptive change ...
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> In college I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on evolutionary biology ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? ... what grades did you carry in abstract mathematics ... or did you even take courses in such ... explain in mathematical terms why you disagree with the paper I posted? ... frankly, the way you focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism, I seriously doubt you've taken _any_ upper division biology ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By now you should realize you are dealing with a religious fanatic who is incapable of being honest and rational in replies, you should see how hard this man avoided answering my snotty questions to prove god exist,
> 
> *The Argument for God's Existence from Contingency*
> 
> His replies in his religion threads follow the same pattern, a bunch of quoted babbling replies and the refusal to make honset replies to questions posed.
> 
> He is brain dead religious fanatic, he is too far gone.
Click to expand...

Which snotty questions did you ask?


----------



## Sunsettommy

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on
> 
> 
> No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking. We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions.  Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com Scientists...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*
> 
> Abiogenesis is NOT biochemical engineering!  Not even close.
> 
> Where did the preexisting strands of amyloid protein structures  come  from?  Where did the preexisting and even more complex organic molecules, which produced them in the first place, come from? Also, please name the preexisting and even more complex organic molecules  that produced them.
> 
> Answer the question, then drop and give me 50!  Thanks.
> 
> Still winning!
Click to expand...


Those are interesting questions, but YOU don't have the answer in either way to them, thus you can't go any further here.

Abiogenesis is a popular explanation on how life can to be, but that probability happened so long ago that I don't give a shit.

You wrote in post one:



> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  *This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events*—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.



_bolding mine_

You have yet to show that god itself exist, thus your entire "creation" argument is a waste of time.


----------



## Sunsettommy

ding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...* in no way, shape or form preclude the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events*
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this a necessary factor? ... in many cases, the fossil record shows this isn't a step, the evolutionary change is smooth and without sudden jumps in adaptive change ...
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> In college I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on evolutionary biology ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? ... what grades did you carry in abstract mathematics ... or did you even take courses in such ... explain in mathematical terms why you disagree with the paper I posted? ... frankly, the way you focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism, I seriously doubt you've taken _any_ upper division biology ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By now you should realize you are dealing with a religious fanatic who is incapable of being honest and rational in replies, you should see how hard this man avoided answering my snotty questions to prove god exist,
> 
> *The Argument for God's Existence from Contingency*
> 
> His replies in his religion threads follow the same pattern, a bunch of quoted babbling replies and the refusal to make honset replies to questions posed.
> 
> He is brain dead religious fanatic, he is too far gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which snotty questions did you ask?
Click to expand...


It is IN the link at post 3


----------



## Sunsettommy

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's OK with you, I'll manage the various gods on an as-needed basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't manage God.  You are terribly ignorant on the subject despite all the discussions we had.  For example, you think there are multiple gods.  Thus, I ask you questions about evolution and get very little answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One actually does manage the gods.
> 
> All the gods ever invented have been invented by humans. I would agree that Christians, like other inventors of gods, managed to create their gods and slather those gods with human attributes and then cower in fear before those gods. Christians have even invented their gods with competitors, of a fashion in characters as you have described as men in red onion skin outfits.
Click to expand...


When nations goes extinct (that dirty word!) their made up gods suddenly vanish too. This happens over and over too......


----------



## Sunsettommy

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> By now at least one of you should have directly addressed the following, but haven't
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we? Check the scoreboard ya dummy.
> 
> Evolution:  eleventy zillion
> Young Earth Creationist goobers: 0.
> 
> Overwhelming scientific consensus, accepted fact, taught at every reputable school and university on the planet.
> 
> We can literally sit here and do nothing and watch you flail. Nobody needs to feel any compulsion to explain to you the contents of a 7th grade science text.
Click to expand...


Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.

Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> I think I'd rather be categorically wrong and challenge the status quo then to not try to find the reason natural selection doesn't fit the data.  I'm not talking about individual mutations.  I am talking about mass mutations (all at or about the same time) within the species that led to a successful speciation.  Like I said before the stasis and the lack of transition is what I am trying to explain.  So those fossil records where there was no transition would be the examples of speciation from mass mutations.  Do I have a specific example?  No.  I didn't think I needed one.  Stasis is proof that natural selection did not lead to speciation.  Lack of transition can only be negated by finding transitions.  What examples should I use to confirm or refute this?



S'okay ... you don't have to try and explain "stasis and the lack of transition" ... the concept you present is self-explaining ...

*Do I have a specific example?  No.  I didn't think I needed one. *

In science, observations are paramount ... if your theory doesn't explain anything we can observe, then it's not science, it's philosophy ... I've given you whales as an example of slow, incremental changes that occurred over tens of millions of years ... each individual mutation in an individual that increases reproduction will spread throughout the gene pool ... this is only a long process in human terms, a scant 200,000 years isn't enough time to notice changes, only 6,000 years to document these changes in writing ... 

If you don't have a specific example, then we have nothing scientific to discuss ... a million cosmic ray particles all striking the exact same bond in a species' DNA within this "short" period of time is improbable in the extreme ...


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> I don't think you evolved in S&T.  Evolution is a lie; You're still looking for answers.



*James*, I'm still waiting on you to explain how the mathematical concept of an actual infinite_—_that of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something_—_(1) exists outside of minds, (2) existed in the minds of Aristotle, C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper, contrary to your contention, but not in yours, and (3) exists in the minds of everyone else (including those of angels and God himself), but not in yours.

When you read _a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something_ does the mathematical concept of an actual infinite pop into existence inside your mind at all?  Perhaps the problem here is episodic amnesia or alzheimer's disease.  It pops into your mind when you read the concept's definition . . . and, then, immediately pops out of your mind.  Very curious, seemingly magical.  Maybe your dyslexic.  No, wait. It's a concept, so that wouldn't explain the problem. 

I'm also still waiting on you to explain how God, an indivisible, unembodied mind of incomparable greatness and perfection, is composed of an actually infinite, quantitatively divisible substance, which would necessarily be material.

You have been unwittingly conflating *the qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics *all your life, haven't you, James?  You have been unwittingly confounding the categorical distinction all your life, haven't you, James?  You have been unwittingly contradicting the ontological imperative of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, to which you subscribe, all your life, haven't you, James?

It is due to this unwitting conflation of things that existed in your mind alongside the mathematical concept of an actual infinite (which, regarding the latter, I put there in its actuality, displacing your nonsensical apparition), that you failed to grasp the thrust of my previous questions and observations, isn't it, James?

Your understanding of things is getting better and better, isn't it, James?

You should be thanking me, James, for disabusing you of this confusion, otherwise you might repeat your error to brighter atheists/agnostics than those routinely encountered on this message board when trying to proselytize them.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> By now at least one of you should have directly addressed the following, but haven't. . . .  The silence . . . except for the chirping of crickets is deafening.
> 
> The burden of proof is on the religious fanatics of scientism to prove that naturalism/materialism is true against the observable evidence that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
> And beneath dance the cloudy skies.



I addressed the OP in my post # 16 ... it seems this paper is beyond your ability to understand ... no, I'm not going to explain it to you, you'll need couple years in a college math classes before I'll even try ... 

What you want is some Middle School explanation ... and such doesn't exist ... must suck to be you ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Sunsettommy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> By now at least one of you should have directly addressed the following, but haven't
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we? Check the scoreboard ya dummy.
> 
> Evolution:  eleventy zillion
> Young Earth Creationist goobers: 0.
> 
> Overwhelming scientific consensus, accepted fact, taught at every reputable school and university on the planet.
> 
> We can literally sit here and do nothing and watch you flail. Nobody needs to feel any compulsion to explain to you the contents of a 7th grade science text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
Click to expand...

Sure, and we will always be missing pieces of it. Else we wouldn't need a theory in the first place! But evolution as the origin of species is so well evidenced that we can safely call it a fact. Finding as many missing pieces as we can is the ongoing science.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  While I do not for a moment believe that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation can produce anything even remotely close to the ubiquitous gain-of-function mutations required by evolutionary theory, gradualism is a no-go.  The paleontological record overwhelmingly depicts a biological history of continuity interspersed by abrupt spurts of speciation_—_that which would be expected if speciation via the underlying mechanism of punctuated equilibrium were true . . . or if speciation via a systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design were true.
Click to expand...

It matters not a whit what you believe about evolution, it's where the data leads that matters. It's to be expected that the religious extremists are the science deniers. They have an agenda to protect.

We see in the threads opened by the religious extremists that the evolution deniers don't understand the concept of "convergence of evidence.  It seems that the defining characteristic of ID'iot creationers is not what they believe, but what they deny, and that is contemporary science and its supporting evidence. It's frequently claimed by the ID'iot creationers that Renaissance Era mathematicians, astronomers were "creationists" because they accepted the Biblical account of creation (under threat and intimidation from the church, of course. This is nonsense as it makes the word useless.  They were unaware of the alternatives, and the evidence for alternatives to the biblical account. ID'iot creationers today, without exception, are those people who literally _are_ aware of the evidence supporting biological evolution and the acceptance of that evidence by the relevant, related science fields but choose to ignore, deny, and retreat to ID'iot creationer ministries to calm an emotional requirement that allows them to shelter behind their various gods.  Nobody shills for charlatans at the Disco'tute Institute because they've never heard of evolution.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> I addressed the OP in my post # 16 ... it seems this paper is beyond your ability to understand ... no, I'm not going to explain it to you, you'll need couple years in a college math classes before I'll even try ...
> 
> What you want is some Middle School explanation ... and such doesn't exist ... must suck to be you ...


I saw post #16.  My previous response was sarcasm.  Let me be more responsive this time.  

It's a mathematical treatment on selection.  You seem to be under the false impression that creationists and/or ID theorists deny selection and the speciation thereof.  Wherever did you get that silly notion?  

Precisely how does the treatment prove that evolution is necessarily true, let alone that naturalism is true?  

It.  Doesn't.  Do.  That.  Does.  It?

And don't give me any crap about my alleged lack of understanding when you can't/won't explain the thrust of the treatment or its relevance to my observation, most especially given the fact that Haldane's calculi are inconclusively mixed regarding the transmutation rate in the past.

As for math, do you mean like the college courses in mathematics you need to take, apparently, in order to grasp the real world ramifications of infinitesimals and the concept of infinity per _my_ mathematical treatment in the other thread? That was significantly less complex than the math in your citation.  Hell, I even explained it to you in detail, in the simplest terms possible, and you still didn't get the thrust of it.   

Maybe you were ill that day.  Give it another try.   

The most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.  Excerpt from my article:

But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
*x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity equals 0. That is to say, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0:​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
*x**1 ÷ x*1120.540.25100.11000.011,0000.00110,0000.0001100,0000.000011,000,000 . . .0.000001 . . .

In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed the OP in my post # 16 ... it seems this paper is beyond your ability to understand ... no, I'm not going to explain it to you, you'll need couple years in a college math classes before I'll even try ...
> 
> What you want is some Middle School explanation ... and such doesn't exist ... must suck to be you ...
> 
> 
> 
> I saw post #16.  My previous response was sarcasm.  Let me be more responsive this time.
> 
> It's a mathematical treatment on selection.  You seem to be under the false impression that creationists and/or ID theorists deny selection and the speciation thereof.  Wherever did you get that silly notion?
> 
> Precisely how does the treatment prove that evolution is necessarily true, let alone that naturalism is true?
> 
> It.  Doesn't.  Do.  That.  Does.  It?
> 
> And don't give me any crap about my alleged lack of understanding when you can't/won't explain the thrust of the treatment or its relevance to my observation, most especially given the fact that Haldane's calculi are inconclusively mixed regarding the transmutation rate in the past.
> 
> As for math, do you mean like the college courses in mathematics you need to take, apparently, in order to grasp the real world ramifications of infinitesimals and the concept of infinity per _my_ mathematical treatment in the other thread? That was significantly less complex than the math in your citation.  Hell, I even explained it to you in detail, in the simplest terms possible, and you still didn't get the thrust of it.
> 
> Maybe you were ill that day.  Give it another try.
> 
> The most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.  Excerpt from my article:
> 
> But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity equals 0. That is to say, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0:​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​​
> *x**1 ÷ x*1120.540.25100.11000.011,0000.00110,0000.0001100,0000.000011,000,000 . . .0.000001 . . .
> 
> 
> In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.
Click to expand...

And then we learned how to sum infinite series in 11th grade math. And the ones who did were saved from buying into this amateurish rehash of old parlor tricks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.
> 
> These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.
> 
> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation.  I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise.  I said:
> 
> The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​
Click to expand...



*Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,* 

Did you ever post your proof?


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you evolved in S&T.  Evolution is a lie; You're still looking for answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *James*, I'm still waiting on you to explain how the mathematical concept of an actual infinite_—_that of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something_—_(1) exists outside of minds, (2) existed in the minds of Aristotle, C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper, contrary to your contention, but not in yours, and (3) exists in the minds of everyone else (including those of angels and God himself), but not in yours.
> 
> When you read _a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something_ does the mathematical concept of an actual infinite pop into existence inside your mind at all?  Perhaps the problem here is episodic amnesia or alzheimer's disease.  It pops into your mind when you read the concept's definition . . . and, then, immediately pops out of your mind.  Very curious, seemingly magical.  Maybe your dyslexic.  No, wait. It's a concept, so that wouldn't explain the problem.
> 
> I'm also still waiting on you to explain how God, an indivisible, unembodied mind of incomparable greatness and perfection, is composed of an actually infinite, quantitatively divisible substance, which would necessarily be material.
> 
> You have been unwittingly conflating *the qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics *all your life, haven't you, James?  You have been unwittingly confounding the categorical distinction all your life, haven't you, James?  You have been unwittingly contradicting the ontological imperative of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, to which you subscribe, all your life, haven't you, James?
> 
> It is due to this unwitting conflation of things that existed in your mind alongside the mathematical concept of an actual infinite (which, regarding the latter, I put there in its actuality, displacing your nonsensical apparition), that you failed to grasp the thrust of my previous questions and observations, isn't it, James?
> 
> Your understanding of things is getting better and better, isn't it, James?
> 
> You should be thanking me, James, for disabusing you of this confusion, otherwise you might repeat your error to brighter atheists/agnostics than those routinely encountered on this message board when trying to proselytize them.
Click to expand...


LMAO .  I still don't think you understand actual infinity nor potential infinity.  Can you answer which one the atheists here and their atheist scientists  practice, but are in denial?  Second, how do I use actual infinity?

>>And then we learned how to sum infinite series in 11th grade math. And the ones who did were saved from buying into this amateurish rehash of old parlor tricks.<<

Fort Fun Indiana just gave an example.  Which infinity is he using?


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> I saw post #16.  My previous response was sarcasm.  Let me be more responsive this time.
> 
> It's a mathematical treatment on selection.  You seem to be under the false impression that creationists and/or ID theorists deny selection and the speciation thereof.  Wherever did you get that silly notion?
> 
> Precisely how does the treatment prove that evolution is necessarily true, let alone that naturalism is true?



It's a mathematical treatment of *natural* selection ... which proves your "divine selection" is unnecessary ... the cyanobacteria from 2.2 billion years ago had plenty of time to radiate into the vast diversity of life we see today ... more than enough time ... one little tiny change after little tiny change ...

It's the Bible that says all the plants and animals were created by God as we know them today ... creationism ... as stated in the Bible ... cows were made perfect to begin with, why would they change? ...

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution is your title ... post #16 is the math you are challenging ... would you please point and say why the step is wrong ... by the way, this is college statistics, not high school calculus ...


----------



## james bond

Sunsettommy said:


> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.



Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.

"There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.


The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3


For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
http://www.nongmoproject.org.
FDA


----------



## Sunsettommy

james bond said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
Click to expand...


This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.

It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
Click to expand...


*GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  *

Why do you feel that?

*the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it.*

What food crops have you ever eaten that weren't modified over the last few thousand years?


----------



## james bond

Sunsettommy said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.
> 
> It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....
Click to expand...


Corn isn't an excellent example of evolution.  Otherwise, you would have explained and still haven't.

This is an example of how atheists and their scientists make general assumptions and attribute it to evolution.

Thus, I discussed how corn is a GMO and is used as bad.  Isn't mutation the driver for evolution?  In this case, it's gene mutation.  Isn't that an example of corn as evolution haha?

Actually, it is a serious topic as evolution and GMO foods are really bad.









						10 GMO Foods You Must Avoid Eating
					

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were once promoted as the future of agriculture and the industry of food in general. With an increasing world population and the development of new technologies in the field of agroindustry, companies – especially the corporate giant Monsanto – presented...




					veryhealthy.life


----------



## Sunsettommy

james bond said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.
> 
> It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corn isn't an excellent example of evolution.  Otherwise, you would have explained and still haven't.
> 
> This is an example of how atheists and their scientists make general assumptions and attribute it to evolution.
> 
> Thus, I discussed how corn is a GMO and is used as bad.  Isn't mutation the driver for evolution?  In this case, it's gene mutation.  Isn't that an example of corn as evolution haha?
> 
> Actually, it is a serious topic as evolution and GMO foods are really bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 GMO Foods You Must Avoid Eating
> 
> 
> Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were once promoted as the future of agriculture and the industry of food in general. With an increasing world population and the development of new technologies in the field of agroindustry, companies – especially the corporate giant Monsanto – presented...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> veryhealthy.life
Click to expand...


I gave you a link showing the radical transformation of Corn over 9,000 years, too bad you didn't read it. 

Here is the simple definition:  





> *Evolution* is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.



Corn as shown in the link, changed radically over 9,000 years, a classic case of guided evolution of a plant. That is a fact you are trying hard to ignore with your silly deflection to GMO.

I haven't mentioned GMO for an obvious that seems to elude you, which is why it is a Red Herring fallacy.


----------



## james bond

Sunsettommy said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.
> 
> It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corn isn't an excellent example of evolution.  Otherwise, you would have explained and still haven't.
> 
> This is an example of how atheists and their scientists make general assumptions and attribute it to evolution.
> 
> Thus, I discussed how corn is a GMO and is used as bad.  Isn't mutation the driver for evolution?  In this case, it's gene mutation.  Isn't that an example of corn as evolution haha?
> 
> Actually, it is a serious topic as evolution and GMO foods are really bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 GMO Foods You Must Avoid Eating
> 
> 
> Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were once promoted as the future of agriculture and the industry of food in general. With an increasing world population and the development of new technologies in the field of agroindustry, companies – especially the corporate giant Monsanto – presented...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> veryhealthy.life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you a link showing the radical transformation of Corn over 9,000 years, too bad you didn't read it.
> 
> Here is the simple definition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution* is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corn as shown in the link, changed radically over 9,000 years, a classic case of guided evolution of a plant. That is a fact you are trying hard to ignore with your silly deflection to GMO.
> 
> I haven't mentioned GMO for an obvious that seems to elude you, which is why it is a Red Herring fallacy.
Click to expand...


You are just taking natural selection which what God gave us to help us farm and grow crops.  It's not easy to farm and raise livestock today.  The best foods are organic or the way we used to grow crops.  This was long _before_ evolution and is part of creation science.

Furthermore, I rather hear it from a person themselves on what they think instead of forcing me to read their link.

Thus, _you_ are avoiding the FACT that evolution has mainly to do with GMO foods.  It is based on gene mutation as I stated.  You do not know enough to be able to argue against this devious method being used in our processed foods that evolution has brought to our food supply.

One of the difficult things is to find out what foods are GMO.  I posted a list of the general ones.

Here's one on the brand names -- 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying.

I try to avoid them, but it's not always possible.  Organic and natural foods are much better for one's health.  I think GMO foods and evolution is why our life expectancies are going down.  Furthermore, why don't you take credit for Covid-19?  Isn't that evolution by natural selection?









						6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying
					

Do you want to know which companies to totally avoid because they use or support GMOs? Here are 6 huge conglomerates aiming to ruin your right to know.




					naturalsociety.com


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  *
> 
> Why do you feel that?
> 
> *the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it.*
> 
> What food crops have you ever eaten that weren't modified over the last few thousand years?
Click to expand...


Toddsterpatriot, you haven't _evolved_ at all.  You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, and rarely answer mine.  Thus, you remain ignorant and do not evolve like a good evolutionist should do.  It's really tough to get better believing in lies.

Here is my question:  Are you a GMO foods eater?  Do you care?  Do you know?  Are you okay with dying before you reach 70s or 80s?


----------



## james bond

Sunsettommy said:


> I gave you a link showing the radical transformation of Corn over 9,000 years, too bad you didn't read it.
> 
> Here is the simple definition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution* is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn as shown in the link, changed radically over 9,000 years, a classic case of guided evolution of a plant. That is a fact you are trying hard to ignore with your silly deflection to GMO.
> 
> I haven't mentioned GMO for an obvious that seems to elude you, which is why it is a Red Herring fallacy.
Click to expand...


Your own source gives the definition as:

"Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation."  It's reference 3.







We have discovered GMO foods are bad and will shorten you life.  Are you a big eater of them?  Practice what you preach.


----------



## james bond

Sunsettommy said:


> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.



I read your article again and found a connection you liar and dirty rat.  You need to eat GMO foods and die early.  So disgusting a poster are you.

George Beadle is a genetecist.

"The term "genetic modified organisms (*GMO*)" has become a controversial topic as its benefits for both *food* producers and consumers are companied by potential biomedical risks and environmental side effects. ... *George* *Beadle* *and* Edward Tatum Hypothesized one gene one enzyme theory..."

Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems 

It led to genetic modification using mutation and to GMO foods.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  *
> 
> Why do you feel that?
> 
> *the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it.*
> 
> What food crops have you ever eaten that weren't modified over the last few thousand years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot, you haven't _evolved_ at all.  You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, and rarely answer mine.  Thus, you remain ignorant and do not evolve like a good evolutionist should do.  It's really tough to get better believing in lies.
> 
> Here is my question:  Are you a GMO foods eater?  Do you care?  Do you know?  Are you okay with dying before you reach 70s or 80s?
Click to expand...


*You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, *

Nah, I expect you to run away.

*Are you a GMO foods eater?*

Unless someone only eats acorns, wild game and wild fish, we all eat genetically modified foods.
Does that make you sad?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  *
> 
> Why do you feel that?
> 
> *the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it.*
> 
> What food crops have you ever eaten that weren't modified over the last few thousand years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot, you haven't _evolved_ at all.  You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, and rarely answer mine.  Thus, you remain ignorant and do not evolve like a good evolutionist should do.  It's really tough to get better believing in lies.
> 
> Here is my question:  Are you a GMO foods eater?  Do you care?  Do you know?  Are you okay with dying before you reach 70s or 80s?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, *
> 
> Nah, I expect you to run away.
> 
> *Are you a GMO foods eater?*
> 
> Unless someone only eats acorns, wild game and wild fish, we all eat genetically modified foods.
> Does that make you sad?
Click to expand...


No, eat, eat, eat GMO foods. It's fast foods, corn, high fructose, and more which was in the article I linked.  It's fast and tastes good even though it's bad for your health.

I try to avoid fast and processed foods and try to eat organic and wild foods.  It's one of the reasons I should live to 90.

You and Sunsettommy are like this guy and should get what you both deserve with GMO foods.  Can't you see him enjoying his corn?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  *
> 
> Why do you feel that?
> 
> *the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it.*
> 
> What food crops have you ever eaten that weren't modified over the last few thousand years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot, you haven't _evolved_ at all.  You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, and rarely answer mine.  Thus, you remain ignorant and do not evolve like a good evolutionist should do.  It's really tough to get better believing in lies.
> 
> Here is my question:  Are you a GMO foods eater?  Do you care?  Do you know?  Are you okay with dying before you reach 70s or 80s?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, *
> 
> Nah, I expect you to run away.
> 
> *Are you a GMO foods eater?*
> 
> Unless someone only eats acorns, wild game and wild fish, we all eat genetically modified foods.
> Does that make you sad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, eat, eat, eat GMO foods. It's fast foods, corn, high fructose, and more which was in the article I linked.  It's fast and tastes good even though it's bad for your health.
> 
> I try to avoid fast and processed foods and try to eat organic and wild foods.  It's one of the reasons I should live to 90.
> 
> You and Sunsettommy are like this guy and should get what you both deserve with GMO foods.  Can't you see him enjoying his corn?
Click to expand...


Which organic foods do you eat that are unmodified?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  *
> 
> Why do you feel that?
> 
> *the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it.*
> 
> What food crops have you ever eaten that weren't modified over the last few thousand years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot, you haven't _evolved_ at all.  You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, and rarely answer mine.  Thus, you remain ignorant and do not evolve like a good evolutionist should do.  It's really tough to get better believing in lies.
> 
> Here is my question:  Are you a GMO foods eater?  Do you care?  Do you know?  Are you okay with dying before you reach 70s or 80s?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, *
> 
> Nah, I expect you to run away.
> 
> *Are you a GMO foods eater?*
> 
> Unless someone only eats acorns, wild game and wild fish, we all eat genetically modified foods.
> Does that make you sad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, eat, eat, eat GMO foods. It's fast foods, corn, high fructose, and more which was in the article I linked.  It's fast and tastes good even though it's bad for your health.
> 
> I try to avoid fast and processed foods and try to eat organic and wild foods.  It's one of the reasons I should live to 90.
> 
> You and Sunsettommy are like this guy and should get what you both deserve with GMO foods.  Can't you see him enjoying his corn?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which organic foods do you eat that are unmodified?
Click to expand...


Lol.  No, practice what you preach about mutations.  Eat, eat, eat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  *
> 
> Why do you feel that?
> 
> *the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it.*
> 
> What food crops have you ever eaten that weren't modified over the last few thousand years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot, you haven't _evolved_ at all.  You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, and rarely answer mine.  Thus, you remain ignorant and do not evolve like a good evolutionist should do.  It's really tough to get better believing in lies.
> 
> Here is my question:  Are you a GMO foods eater?  Do you care?  Do you know?  Are you okay with dying before you reach 70s or 80s?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, *
> 
> Nah, I expect you to run away.
> 
> *Are you a GMO foods eater?*
> 
> Unless someone only eats acorns, wild game and wild fish, we all eat genetically modified foods.
> Does that make you sad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, eat, eat, eat GMO foods. It's fast foods, corn, high fructose, and more which was in the article I linked.  It's fast and tastes good even though it's bad for your health.
> 
> I try to avoid fast and processed foods and try to eat organic and wild foods.  It's one of the reasons I should live to 90.
> 
> You and Sunsettommy are like this guy and should get what you both deserve with GMO foods.  Can't you see him enjoying his corn?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which organic foods do you eat that are unmodified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  No, practice what you preach about mutations.  Eat, eat, eat.
Click to expand...







Don't cry James.......


----------



## james bond

Being cooped up is trying.  It's why I'm cooking a thick Porterhouse steak sous vide today.

Nice, thick porterhouse.  Are you gonna claim it's GMO fed beef?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 461844
> 
> Don't cry James.......



Must be your baby picture haha.  Since we're sharing today, what are you making and eating?


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I try to avoid fast and processed foods and try to eat organic and wild foods.



You are to be commended for this ... I'm not so much worried about GMO's but rather everything else that goes into commercial agriculture ...


----------



## Sunsettommy

james bond said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.
> 
> It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corn isn't an excellent example of evolution.  Otherwise, you would have explained and still haven't.
> 
> This is an example of how atheists and their scientists make general assumptions and attribute it to evolution.
> 
> Thus, I discussed how corn is a GMO and is used as bad.  Isn't mutation the driver for evolution?  In this case, it's gene mutation.  Isn't that an example of corn as evolution haha?
> 
> Actually, it is a serious topic as evolution and GMO foods are really bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 GMO Foods You Must Avoid Eating
> 
> 
> Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were once promoted as the future of agriculture and the industry of food in general. With an increasing world population and the development of new technologies in the field of agroindustry, companies – especially the corporate giant Monsanto – presented...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> veryhealthy.life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you a link showing the radical transformation of Corn over 9,000 years, too bad you didn't read it.
> 
> Here is the simple definition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution* is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corn as shown in the link, changed radically over 9,000 years, a classic case of guided evolution of a plant. That is a fact you are trying hard to ignore with your silly deflection to GMO.
> 
> I haven't mentioned GMO for an obvious that seems to elude you, which is why it is a Red Herring fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just taking natural selection which what God gave us to help us farm and grow crops.  It's not easy to farm and raise livestock today.  The best foods are organic or the way we used to grow crops.  This was long _before_ evolution and is part of creation science.
> 
> Furthermore, I rather hear it from a person themselves on what they think instead of forcing me to read their link.
> 
> Thus, _you_ are avoiding the FACT that evolution has mainly to do with GMO foods.  It is based on gene mutation as I stated.  You do not know enough to be able to argue against this devious method being used in our processed foods that evolution has brought to our food supply.
> 
> One of the difficult things is to find out what foods are GMO.  I posted a list of the general ones.
> 
> Here's one on the brand names -- 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying.
> 
> I try to avoid them, but it's not always possible.  Organic and natural foods are much better for one's health.  I think GMO foods and evolution is why our life expectancies are going down.  Furthermore, why don't you take credit for Covid-19?  Isn't that evolution by natural selection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying
> 
> 
> Do you want to know which companies to totally avoid because they use or support GMOs? Here are 6 huge conglomerates aiming to ruin your right to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naturalsociety.com
Click to expand...


You are confused in what is Natural selection is and what is artificial selection, here is the difference from Wikipedia:

*



			Natural selection
		
Click to expand...

*


> is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which in his view is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.



The Corn evolution I brought up is an excellent example of ARTIFICIAL selection. Dogs are another example of artificial evolution, where they didn't exist at all before 45.000 BCE. The PUG didn't exist before 500 BCE.

This is the fact you keep ducking because it doesn't support your creationist science at all.

Not going to run with your GMO red herring.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try to avoid fast and processed foods and try to eat organic and wild foods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are to be commended for this ... I'm not so much worried about GMO's but rather everything else that goes into commercial agriculture ...
Click to expand...


You should avoid GMO foods.  Is there a way to do it cheaply?  Yes, there is but it takes work which may mean driving further to a Trader's Joes, Whole Earth Foods, or knowing what to order online.  General rule of thumb is to avoid foods from China.  However, any canned and processed foods at your grocer is probably GMO wherever they're from.

God gave us fresh, natural, organic foods, but instead evolution gave us GMO foods.


----------



## Sunsettommy

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  *
> 
> Why do you feel that?
> 
> *the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it.*
> 
> What food crops have you ever eaten that weren't modified over the last few thousand years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot, you haven't _evolved_ at all.  You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, and rarely answer mine.  Thus, you remain ignorant and do not evolve like a good evolutionist should do.  It's really tough to get better believing in lies.
> 
> Here is my question:  Are you a GMO foods eater?  Do you care?  Do you know?  Are you okay with dying before you reach 70s or 80s?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, *
> 
> Nah, I expect you to run away.
> 
> *Are you a GMO foods eater?*
> 
> Unless someone only eats acorns, wild game and wild fish, we all eat genetically modified foods.
> Does that make you sad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, eat, eat, eat GMO foods. It's fast foods, corn, high fructose, and more which was in the article I linked.  It's fast and tastes good even though it's bad for your health.
> 
> I try to avoid fast and processed foods and try to eat organic and wild foods.  It's one of the reasons I should live to 90.
> 
> You and Sunsettommy are like this guy and should get what you both deserve with GMO foods.  Can't you see him enjoying his corn?
Click to expand...


Ha ha, I have that movie, he is eating OPEN pollinated corn.

Meanwhile I don't eat corn and avoid corn syrup too, since it is high carbohydrates with too little return nutritionally. 

You can grow a lot of vegetables in the your yard if you were really that determined to avoid GMO foods, but do you garden much at all?

I grow veggies at home organically, but have no problem with oil based fertilizers on farms, since they don't make any difference to the food itself, but can damage the soil if used too much.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I still don't think you understand actual infinity nor potential infinity.


Oh Bond. You poor, embarrassing little man. You say things like this and literally EVERYBODY knows you have no idea what you are talking about. They know you have no understanding of those topics. They know you say things like this, because you honestly think such transparent posturing gives you the "upper hand" somehow. It does not. It is bad acting and fools nobody.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Are you gonna claim it's GMO fed beef?


Of course it is.


----------



## james bond

Sunsettommy said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.
> 
> It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corn isn't an excellent example of evolution.  Otherwise, you would have explained and still haven't.
> 
> This is an example of how atheists and their scientists make general assumptions and attribute it to evolution.
> 
> Thus, I discussed how corn is a GMO and is used as bad.  Isn't mutation the driver for evolution?  In this case, it's gene mutation.  Isn't that an example of corn as evolution haha?
> 
> Actually, it is a serious topic as evolution and GMO foods are really bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 GMO Foods You Must Avoid Eating
> 
> 
> Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were once promoted as the future of agriculture and the industry of food in general. With an increasing world population and the development of new technologies in the field of agroindustry, companies – especially the corporate giant Monsanto – presented...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> veryhealthy.life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you a link showing the radical transformation of Corn over 9,000 years, too bad you didn't read it.
> 
> Here is the simple definition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution* is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corn as shown in the link, changed radically over 9,000 years, a classic case of guided evolution of a plant. That is a fact you are trying hard to ignore with your silly deflection to GMO.
> 
> I haven't mentioned GMO for an obvious that seems to elude you, which is why it is a Red Herring fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just taking natural selection which what God gave us to help us farm and grow crops.  It's not easy to farm and raise livestock today.  The best foods are organic or the way we used to grow crops.  This was long _before_ evolution and is part of creation science.
> 
> Furthermore, I rather hear it from a person themselves on what they think instead of forcing me to read their link.
> 
> Thus, _you_ are avoiding the FACT that evolution has mainly to do with GMO foods.  It is based on gene mutation as I stated.  You do not know enough to be able to argue against this devious method being used in our processed foods that evolution has brought to our food supply.
> 
> One of the difficult things is to find out what foods are GMO.  I posted a list of the general ones.
> 
> Here's one on the brand names -- 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying.
> 
> I try to avoid them, but it's not always possible.  Organic and natural foods are much better for one's health.  I think GMO foods and evolution is why our life expectancies are going down.  Furthermore, why don't you take credit for Covid-19?  Isn't that evolution by natural selection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying
> 
> 
> Do you want to know which companies to totally avoid because they use or support GMOs? Here are 6 huge conglomerates aiming to ruin your right to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naturalsociety.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused in what is Natural selection is and what is artificial selection, here is the difference from Wikipedia:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which in his view is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Corn evolution I brought up is an excellent example of ARTIFICIAL selection. Dogs are another example of artificial evolution, where they didn't exist at all before 45.000 BCE. The PUG didn't exist before 500 BCE.
> 
> This is the fact you keep ducking because it doesn't support your creationist science at all.
> 
> Not going to run with your GMO red herring.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you are admitting it now.  And you should take responsibility for GMO foods.

Natural selection was made by God.  Artificial selection is evolution.  So, you are right.  Creation science does not support artificial selection.  Here's why.

"*Artificial selection occurs when humans breed for certain traits* (such as speed, one of the traits selected for within the past 200 years, according to these researchers). In doing so, the breeder eliminates much of the variety within the genome (that’s created in the original kind). This results in low genetic diversity. To emphasize how low this diversity is, the article points out that nearly all male thoroughbreds (like those who raced at the Kentucky Derby just a little over a week ago) can trace their ancestry back to one stallion born in the year 1700.

And this low diversity is not a good thing! As _National Geographic_ notes, “low genetic diversity leads to harmful genetic defects,” such as blindness or a sometimes-fatal condition known as myopathy. We see the same thing in dogs—low genetic diversity in the purebreds* results in all kinds of health problems."









						Did Speedy Horses Evolve Only Recently?
					

The headline for a new study summarized by National Geographic declared, “Speedy horses evolved only recently, says landmark equine study.”




					answersingenesis.org
				




Puhleeze eat, eat, eat this kind of food today.











Nicer than saying eat feces and die.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't think you understand actual infinity nor potential infinity.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Bond. You poor, embarrassing little man. You say things like this and literally EVERYBODY knows you have no idea what you are talking about. They know you have no understanding of those topics. They know you say things like this, because you honestly think such transparent posturing gives you the "upper hand" somehow. It does not. It is bad acting and fools nobody.
Click to expand...


Go ahead and clarify so we all know.  You're the Mr. Millions and Billions of Years.

(Man, I still have problems trying to relate that kind of long time.  Sure, we have an idea of millions and billions of dollars but time is another matter.  We're only here for a short time.  Thus, 6,000 years seems like a lot to us creationists )


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gonna claim it's GMO fed beef?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
Click to expand...


One can buy from places where the cattle are not fed atheist GMO corn.  Follow the link in the vid I posted.  You can also buy online from Amazon.

BTW, what kind of GMO are you eating today?


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'd rather be categorically wrong and challenge the status quo then to not try to find the reason natural selection doesn't fit the data.  I'm not talking about individual mutations.  I am talking about mass mutations (all at or about the same time) within the species that led to a successful speciation.  Like I said before the stasis and the lack of transition is what I am trying to explain.  So those fossil records where there was no transition would be the examples of speciation from mass mutations.  Do I have a specific example?  No.  I didn't think I needed one.  Stasis is proof that natural selection did not lead to speciation.  Lack of transition can only be negated by finding transitions.  What examples should I use to confirm or refute this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S'okay ... you don't have to try and explain "stasis and the lack of transition" ... the concept you present is self-explaining ...
> 
> *Do I have a specific example?  No.  I didn't think I needed one. *
> 
> In science, observations are paramount ... if your theory doesn't explain anything we can observe, then it's not science, it's philosophy ... I've given you whales as an example of slow, incremental changes that occurred over tens of millions of years ... each individual mutation in an individual that increases reproduction will spread throughout the gene pool ... this is only a long process in human terms, a scant 200,000 years isn't enough time to notice changes, only 6,000 years to document these changes in writing ...
> 
> If you don't have a specific example, then we have nothing scientific to discuss ... a million cosmic ray particles all striking the exact same bond in a species' DNA within this "short" period of time is improbable in the extreme ...
Click to expand...

I would say all we need for a discussion is a gap or an incongruity in the status quo theory.  Stasis and lack of transitional fossils fit that bill.  But I get your position, you believe natural selection explains everything.  I don't.


----------



## Sunsettommy

james bond said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.
> 
> It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corn isn't an excellent example of evolution.  Otherwise, you would have explained and still haven't.
> 
> This is an example of how atheists and their scientists make general assumptions and attribute it to evolution.
> 
> Thus, I discussed how corn is a GMO and is used as bad.  Isn't mutation the driver for evolution?  In this case, it's gene mutation.  Isn't that an example of corn as evolution haha?
> 
> Actually, it is a serious topic as evolution and GMO foods are really bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 GMO Foods You Must Avoid Eating
> 
> 
> Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were once promoted as the future of agriculture and the industry of food in general. With an increasing world population and the development of new technologies in the field of agroindustry, companies – especially the corporate giant Monsanto – presented...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> veryhealthy.life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you a link showing the radical transformation of Corn over 9,000 years, too bad you didn't read it.
> 
> Here is the simple definition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution* is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corn as shown in the link, changed radically over 9,000 years, a classic case of guided evolution of a plant. That is a fact you are trying hard to ignore with your silly deflection to GMO.
> 
> I haven't mentioned GMO for an obvious that seems to elude you, which is why it is a Red Herring fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just taking natural selection which what God gave us to help us farm and grow crops.  It's not easy to farm and raise livestock today.  The best foods are organic or the way we used to grow crops.  This was long _before_ evolution and is part of creation science.
> 
> Furthermore, I rather hear it from a person themselves on what they think instead of forcing me to read their link.
> 
> Thus, _you_ are avoiding the FACT that evolution has mainly to do with GMO foods.  It is based on gene mutation as I stated.  You do not know enough to be able to argue against this devious method being used in our processed foods that evolution has brought to our food supply.
> 
> One of the difficult things is to find out what foods are GMO.  I posted a list of the general ones.
> 
> Here's one on the brand names -- 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying.
> 
> I try to avoid them, but it's not always possible.  Organic and natural foods are much better for one's health.  I think GMO foods and evolution is why our life expectancies are going down.  Furthermore, why don't you take credit for Covid-19?  Isn't that evolution by natural selection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying
> 
> 
> Do you want to know which companies to totally avoid because they use or support GMOs? Here are 6 huge conglomerates aiming to ruin your right to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naturalsociety.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused in what is Natural selection is and what is artificial selection, here is the difference from Wikipedia:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which in his view is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Corn evolution I brought up is an excellent example of ARTIFICIAL selection. Dogs are another example of artificial evolution, where they didn't exist at all before 45.000 BCE. The PUG didn't exist before 500 BCE.
> 
> This is the fact you keep ducking because it doesn't support your creationist science at all.
> 
> Not going to run with your GMO red herring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you are admitting it now.  And you should take responsibility for GMO foods.
> 
> Natural selection was made by God.  Artificial selection is evolution.  So, you are right.  Creation science does not support artificial selection.  Here's why.
> 
> "*Artificial selection occurs when humans breed for certain traits* (such as speed, one of the traits selected for within the past 200 years, according to these researchers). In doing so, the breeder eliminates much of the variety within the genome (that’s created in the original kind). This results in low genetic diversity. To emphasize how low this diversity is, the article points out that nearly all male thoroughbreds (like those who raced at the Kentucky Derby just a little over a week ago) can trace their ancestry back to one stallion born in the year 1700.
> 
> And this low diversity is not a good thing! As _National Geographic_ notes, “low genetic diversity leads to harmful genetic defects,” such as blindness or a sometimes-fatal condition known as myopathy. We see the same thing in dogs—low genetic diversity in the purebreds* results in all kinds of health problems."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Speedy Horses Evolve Only Recently?
> 
> 
> The headline for a new study summarized by National Geographic declared, “Speedy horses evolved only recently, says landmark equine study.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puhleeze eat, eat, eat this kind of food today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nicer than saying eat feces and die.
Click to expand...


I haven't admitted anything, it the obvious fact that BOTH natural and artificial evolution exist, I showed that evolution of animal species by humans made clear that it happens at a much faster pace. Creation Science doesn't allow that, which is why your contradictory evolution arguments are silly.

Your low genetic diversity argument is weak since the original "corn" plants exist as does the Wolf, the horse and so on.


----------



## james bond

Sunsettommy said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.
> 
> Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.  It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.
> 
> "There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.
> 
> 
> The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
> The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
> The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3
> 
> 
> For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
> http://www.nongmoproject.org.
> FDA
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.
> 
> It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corn isn't an excellent example of evolution.  Otherwise, you would have explained and still haven't.
> 
> This is an example of how atheists and their scientists make general assumptions and attribute it to evolution.
> 
> Thus, I discussed how corn is a GMO and is used as bad.  Isn't mutation the driver for evolution?  In this case, it's gene mutation.  Isn't that an example of corn as evolution haha?
> 
> Actually, it is a serious topic as evolution and GMO foods are really bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 GMO Foods You Must Avoid Eating
> 
> 
> Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were once promoted as the future of agriculture and the industry of food in general. With an increasing world population and the development of new technologies in the field of agroindustry, companies – especially the corporate giant Monsanto – presented...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> veryhealthy.life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you a link showing the radical transformation of Corn over 9,000 years, too bad you didn't read it.
> 
> Here is the simple definition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution* is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corn as shown in the link, changed radically over 9,000 years, a classic case of guided evolution of a plant. That is a fact you are trying hard to ignore with your silly deflection to GMO.
> 
> I haven't mentioned GMO for an obvious that seems to elude you, which is why it is a Red Herring fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just taking natural selection which what God gave us to help us farm and grow crops.  It's not easy to farm and raise livestock today.  The best foods are organic or the way we used to grow crops.  This was long _before_ evolution and is part of creation science.
> 
> Furthermore, I rather hear it from a person themselves on what they think instead of forcing me to read their link.
> 
> Thus, _you_ are avoiding the FACT that evolution has mainly to do with GMO foods.  It is based on gene mutation as I stated.  You do not know enough to be able to argue against this devious method being used in our processed foods that evolution has brought to our food supply.
> 
> One of the difficult things is to find out what foods are GMO.  I posted a list of the general ones.
> 
> Here's one on the brand names -- 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying.
> 
> I try to avoid them, but it's not always possible.  Organic and natural foods are much better for one's health.  I think GMO foods and evolution is why our life expectancies are going down.  Furthermore, why don't you take credit for Covid-19?  Isn't that evolution by natural selection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying
> 
> 
> Do you want to know which companies to totally avoid because they use or support GMOs? Here are 6 huge conglomerates aiming to ruin your right to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naturalsociety.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused in what is Natural selection is and what is artificial selection, here is the difference from Wikipedia:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which in his view is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Corn evolution I brought up is an excellent example of ARTIFICIAL selection. Dogs are another example of artificial evolution, where they didn't exist at all before 45.000 BCE. The PUG didn't exist before 500 BCE.
> 
> This is the fact you keep ducking because it doesn't support your creationist science at all.
> 
> Not going to run with your GMO red herring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you are admitting it now.  And you should take responsibility for GMO foods.
> 
> Natural selection was made by God.  Artificial selection is evolution.  So, you are right.  Creation science does not support artificial selection.  Here's why.
> 
> "*Artificial selection occurs when humans breed for certain traits* (such as speed, one of the traits selected for within the past 200 years, according to these researchers). In doing so, the breeder eliminates much of the variety within the genome (that’s created in the original kind). This results in low genetic diversity. To emphasize how low this diversity is, the article points out that nearly all male thoroughbreds (like those who raced at the Kentucky Derby just a little over a week ago) can trace their ancestry back to one stallion born in the year 1700.
> 
> And this low diversity is not a good thing! As _National Geographic_ notes, “low genetic diversity leads to harmful genetic defects,” such as blindness or a sometimes-fatal condition known as myopathy. We see the same thing in dogs—low genetic diversity in the purebreds* results in all kinds of health problems."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Speedy Horses Evolve Only Recently?
> 
> 
> The headline for a new study summarized by National Geographic declared, “Speedy horses evolved only recently, says landmark equine study.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puhleeze eat, eat, eat this kind of food today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nicer than saying eat feces and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't admitted anything, it the obvious fact that BOTH natural and artificial evolution exist, I showed that evolution of animal species by humans made clear that it happens at a much faster pace. Creation Science doesn't allow that, which is why your contradictory evolution arguments are silly.
> 
> Your low genetic diversity argument is weak since the original "corn" plants exist as does the Wolf, the horse and so on.
Click to expand...


You're the one who challenged me since creation doesn't have anything like artificial selection.  You admitted evolution is artificial selection and I pointed out what creation science has found..  Isn't that what usually happens with evolution -- early death?  People know that after Darwin and his cousin Galton that eugenics came and it caused the Holocaust.  Today, we have GMO foods and artificial selection thinking they aren't harmful.

I try not to eat the Mexican corn, but its used a lot in the food industry in California as vegetables and animal feed.

>>Your low genetic diversity argument is weak since the original "corn" plants exist as does the Wolf, the horse and so on.<<

So hypocritical.  Just give it time.  We're supposed to give atheists millions and billions of years and you can't give us a little time.  Hopefully, people will become aware and protest to get rid of the food like many protested importing foods from China.  Yet, it still happens a lot and in feed or as hidden ingredients. 

I would think the Kentucky Derby horses could go blind or end up with myopathy.  People are looking out for it -- https://www.thedodo.com/what-happens-to-racehorses-aft-535090804.html.

What GMO did you eat today?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Go ahead and clarify so we all know.


What would you like clarified for you? I can point you toward some resources for discrete mathematics. Beyond that, get out the checkbook and take a class at your local university.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead and clarify so we all know.
> 
> 
> 
> What would you like clarified for you? I can point you toward some resources for discrete mathematics. Beyond that, get out the checkbook and take a class at your local university.
Click to expand...


Lol.  Now this is _avoidance_.  Again, what GMO foods are you eating today?  Is there a recommended dosage of GMO foods one should eat daily if evolution is true?

I haven't criticized artificial selection, as much as abiongenesis and singularity, because the atheists and their scientists haven't admitted that its bad for you.  I doubt they will.  Thus, it's two methods to get diversity, but what is really safe was is natural selection as God created.  Human selection isn't as good.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> LMAO .  I still don't think you understand actual infinity nor potential infinity.  Can you answer which one the atheists here and their atheist scientists  practice, but are in denial?  Second, how do I use actual infinity?
> 
> >>And then we learned how to sum infinite series in 11th grade math. And the ones who did were saved from buying into this amateurish rehash of old parlor tricks.<<
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana just gave an example.  Which infinity is he using?



The actually infinite does not and cannot exist in the spacetime continuum.  Period!

Are you claiming—contrary to the logical, mathematical and scientific ramifications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument—that the spacetime continuum is an actual infinite?!


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> It matters not a whit what you believe about evolution,




It matters not a whit what you think about common design.  God laughs at you.  I laugh at you.  I open my mouth and haha comes out.  I laugh and laugh and laugh at you.  See Ringtone laugh.  Laugh, Ringtone, laugh.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Now this is _avoidance_.


Excuse you, my little fraud. I directly asked you what you needed to be clarified. Then you respond with this dog and pony show (as I knew you would). Because, as everyone knows, you know less than nothing about any mathematics and don't even KNOW what you need clarified. You literally don't even know how to answer the question. 

It's just so easy to expose frauds like you. A simple question does the trick. Back in my claims investigation days, you are what we would call "a dunker".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> The actually infinite does not and cannot exist in the spacetime continuum. Period!


Oh yeah?

So what does it look like, when you watch your friend fall into a black hole?

If you don't know, say so. And i will teach you.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.*
> 
> What do you mean by, "*Mutations entail a loss of information*"?



I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart.  Clarification:  I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance.  That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain.  A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist.  Today, I'll get into what I think.

So let's get back to it.

Earlier, I asked the following:

Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​
(You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)

You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity and precision, the _increased complexity_ to which I allude in the above is _the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time._ I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.

Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?

Again, that's the theory.

Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be _no_, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is _yes_, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.

There's that catch 22 again.

In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? 

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.

On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is _avoidance_.
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you, my little fraud. I directly asked you what you needed to be clarified. Then you respond with this dog and pony show (as I knew you would). Because, as everyone knows, you know less than nothing about any mathematics and don't even KNOW what you need clarified. You literally don't even know how to answer the question.
> 
> It's just so easy to expose frauds like you. A simple question does the trick. Back in my claims investigation days, you are what we would call "a dunker".
Click to expand...


As I thought.  You could not disprove my porterhouse steak that I'm cooking now was fed with GMO corn.  One can ask the butcher about the cattle and meat.  What kind of nutgoober are you stating chances and what not?  There are many people who do not want to eat GMO foods, but it's more difficult for them.  I admit it's a little more work and trouble.

It doesn't bother me and its my mouth and my family's mouth they are going into.  Not yours.  It is worth the extra care.

Anyway, you avoid my questions.  *What are your favorite GMO foods then? * You should be able to answer it easily.   I'm the one having to go through the trouble of ensuring I'm not eating GMO.  For example, farmed raised fish is everywhere.  It's in the frozen fish and meats section.  OTOH, it's more difficult for me to get wild caught fish.

You, Sunsettommy, and Toddsterpatriot can eat anything you want and not worry except maybe getting too many calories since you're evolutionists and think GMOs are fine.


----------



## james bond

RE:  Sous vide





I thought about the amount of money one spends on metal cooking pans and how one has to watch their meat cooking from pre-heating the pan or oven, to cooking, searing it just right, flipping it over and being careful to not cut the meat open and let the juices flow out.  With sous vide, you just set the right temperature, season the meat, vacuum seal the food, and then let the timer and water do the work.  They even have an app so you can turn it off while you're out.  It takes hours tho as you're cooking with low heat.  Anyway, it gives you an excellent chance for success with the better cuts of meat.  The food sealer also saves you money of keeping food fresh for much longer.  You'll be throwing less out.  If there's a weird part, then it's the blow torch to sear the meat but I think most men like to do it.

I think this guy is the most popular on youtube.  See if what he says makes sense as in $s and  ¢s.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You could not disprove my porterhouse steak that I'm cooking now was fed with GMO corn.


I am betting it was. I am also betting that you have absolutely zero idea why you are terrified of GMOs.


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO .  I still don't think you understand actual infinity nor potential infinity.  Can you answer which one the atheists here and their atheist scientists  practice, but are in denial?  Second, how do I use actual infinity?
> 
> >>And then we learned how to sum infinite series in 11th grade math. And the ones who did were saved from buying into this amateurish rehash of old parlor tricks.<<
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana just gave an example.  Which infinity is he using?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actually infinite does not and cannot exist in the spacetime continuum.  Period!
> 
> Are you claiming—contrary to the logical, mathematical and scientific ramifications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument—that the spacetime continuum is an actual infinite?!
Click to expand...


I don't know why you interpret things I've already stated multiple times wrong.  It's too bad Frannie isn't here anymore.  Have you discussed things with him before?  He could repeat things and contradict himself ad infinitum.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could not disprove my porterhouse steak that I'm cooking now was fed with GMO corn.
> 
> 
> 
> I am betting it was. I am also betting that you have absolutely zero idea why you are terrified of GMOs.
Click to expand...


How about clarifying why GMO foods are good for you (not me) and pretty please answer *What are your favorite GMO foods then?*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> How about clarifying why GMO foods are good for you


Because we need nutrition to survive. What a stupid question. Duh, why is food good for us? Derrrr


----------



## james bond

For the atheists hear who like to lol.

*DOCTORS CONFIRM FIRST HUMAN DEATH OFFICIALLY CAUSED BY GMOS*








						Doctors Confirm First Human Death Officially Caused by GMOs
					

Madrid | Doctors of the Carlos III hospital confirmed this morning in a press conference, the first case of human death caused by the ingestion of genetically modified food. Juan Pedro Ramos died from anaphylaxis after eating some recently developed tomatoes containing fish genes, which provoked a v



					worldnewsdailyreport.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> For the atheists hear who like to lol.
> 
> *DOCTORS CONFIRM FIRST HUMAN DEATH OFFICIALLY CAUSED BY GMOS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doctors Confirm First Human Death Officially Caused by GMOs
> 
> 
> Madrid | Doctors of the Carlos III hospital confirmed this morning in a press conference, the first case of human death caused by the ingestion of genetically modified food. Juan Pedro Ramos died from anaphylaxis after eating some recently developed tomatoes containing fish genes, which provoked a v
> 
> 
> 
> worldnewsdailyreport.com



Haha...nice source. Was it Batboy?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about clarifying why GMO foods are good for you
> 
> 
> 
> Because we need nutrition to survive. What a stupid question. Duh, why is food good for us? Derrrr
Click to expand...


It's not just GMO foods.  Many people try to just eat non-GMO foods for their nutrition.  

C'mon, you're avoiding what GMO foods you like to eat.  Thus, it appears you are running away from GMO foods because they're scary and can kill you earlier than your 70s and 80s.

It's not stupid if the foods you eat can kill you and give you tumors.

We just had a report today on the non-GMO foods market -- Worldwide Non-GMO Foods Industry to 2025 - Key Drivers, Challenges and Trends.

I know what you'd like to eat.  Chicken butts.  5 cents a cut.  Or pork butts.  Any kind of butts haha.

For those who do not care to indulge in GMO and deadly foods, you can look here -- Verified Products – The Non-GMO Project.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's not just GMO foods. Many people try to just eat non-GMO foods for their nutrition.


That's deep, man. 




james bond said:


> C'mon, you're avoiding what GMO foods you like to eat.


I have no idea, because i don't pay any attention to that. I don't have an irrational fear of GMO foods that was created by lying bloggers. That's your department.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> I don't know why you interpret things. I've already stated multiple times wrong.  It's too bad Frannie isn't here anymore.  Have you discussed things with him before?  He could repeat things and contradict himself ad infinitum.



You're claiming I don't understand what actual and potential infinities are, and that I'm contradicting myself, once again, sans giving any coherent reason why that's true.

The actually infinite does not and cannot exist in the spacetime continuum.  Period!  That's what the mathematical treatment in the above goes to.  I'm not talking about the mathematical *concept* as it exists in minds in this instance.  Is that what's throwing you now?

Fine.  Let me restate things so that there is no room for confusion in that mind of yours.  Bear in mind that the following only pertains to entities of the natural world, not to the existential ground of any supernatural entities whatsoever:

The actually infinite does not and cannot exist anywhere in the spacetime continuum, _except_ as it exists as a mathematical concept in human minds.  Period!​​Are you claiming—contrary to the logical, mathematical and scientific ramifications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument—that the _spacetime continuum_ is an actual infinite?!​
It's a yes/no question.  I'm trying to understand what you're saying.  Emphatically establish your contention in this wise.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> I would say all we need for a discussion is a gap or an incongruity in the status quo theory.  Stasis and lack of transitional fossils fit that bill.  But I get your position, you believe natural selection explains everything.  I don't.



I agree 100% ... with any scientific theory, the counter-examples must be correctly explained ... or one must question the theory ... what I want to know is what counter-example are you talking about, or is this some hypothetical species that _could_ have existed? ... 

Fossils are exceptionally difficult to make, and are generally rare ... and that's only for organisms that can form fossils, a vast majority do not ... gaps in the fossil record are due to a lack of fossils, we have to interpolate the data we do have ... we also have very little time resolution in the geologic record, the Grand Canyon is only 6,000 feet deep and covers about half the age of the Earth itself, 2.2 billion years at her lowest levels, about 350,000 thousand years _per foot_ ... and dating the layers is more art than science ... 

What other kinds of selection could there be? ... besides human domestication ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say all we need for a discussion is a gap or an incongruity in the status quo theory.  Stasis and lack of transitional fossils fit that bill.  But I get your position, you believe natural selection explains everything.  I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100% ... with any scientific theory, the counter-examples must be correctly explained ... or one must question the theory ... what I want to know is what counter-example are you talking about, or is this some hypothetical species that _could_ have existed? ...
> 
> Fossils are exceptionally difficult to make, and are generally rare ... and that's only for organisms that can form fossils, a vast majority do not ... gaps in the fossil record are due to a lack of fossils, we have to interpolate the data we do have ... we also have very little time resolution in the geologic record, the Grand Canyon is only 6,000 feet deep and covers about half the age of the Earth itself, 2.2 billion years at her lowest levels, about 350,000 thousand years _per foot_ ... and dating the layers is more art than science ...
> 
> What other kinds of selection could there be? ... besides human domestication ...
Click to expand...

In the context of speciation, my point is that it's not natural selection.  It's always been genetic mutations.  So I don't think any selections are responsible for speciation.  

The examples are stasis when no mutations occur or are unsuccessful in creating a new species and all of the speciations which have no transitional fossils.  The same "examples" that led to the theories of punctuated equilibrium and saltation.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> In the context of speciation, my point is that it's not natural selection.  It's always been genetic mutations.  So I don't think any selections are responsible for speciation.
> 
> The examples are stasis when no mutations occur or are unsuccessful in creating a new species and all of the speciations which have no transitional fossils.  The same "examples" that led to the theories of punctuated equilibrium and saltation.



A genetic mutation is the cause, natural selection is the effect ... this is easy to demonstrate in the lab with fruit flies ... sounds like you're pointing out a few cases where this doesn't happen, like in the shark family ... they've changed very little over the past 200 millions year, but it's a good design, maybe improvements aren't needed ... and there's absolutely noting in the math that says species must change over time ... our _k_ value being very close to zero ...

Natural selection allows for both punctuated equilibrium and saltation ... just change your _k_ value up and down ...

ETA:  What is there about punctuated equilibrium and saltation that doesn't allow "in between" pathways? ...


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> I don't know why you interpret things I've already stated multiple times wrong.  It's too bad Frannie isn't here anymore.  Have you discussed things with him before?  He could repeat things and contradict himself ad infinitum.



Hey, James, still looking for that yes/no answer.  See post #436.  Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.*
> 
> What do you mean by, "*Mutations entail a loss of information*"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart.  Clarification:  I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance.  That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain.  A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist.  Today, I'll get into what I think.
> 
> So let's get back to it.
> 
> Earlier, I asked the following:
> 
> Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​
> (You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)
> 
> You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity and precision, the _increased complexity_ to which I allude in the above is _the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time._ I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.
> 
> Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.
> 
> On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.
> 
> Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?
> 
> Again, that's the theory.
> 
> Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be _no_, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is _yes_, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.
> 
> There's that catch 22 again.
> 
> In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.
> 
> I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you?
> 
> Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .
> 
> Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.
> 
> On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
Click to expand...

*
Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? *

I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I have no idea, because i don't pay any attention to that. I don't have an irrational fear of GMO foods that was created by lying bloggers. That's your department.



It's the nutritional science department.  Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.

In the Bible, God told Adam and Eve (and us) that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their and our food.  GMO foods are not that.

We also know from the Bible that Jesus ate meat.  Thus, I had a nice lunch today and am greatly satisfied.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.*
> 
> What do you mean by, "*Mutations entail a loss of information*"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart.  Clarification:  I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance.  That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain.  A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist.  Today, I'll get into what I think.
> 
> So let's get back to it.
> 
> Earlier, I asked the following:
> 
> Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​
> (You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)
> 
> You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity, the _increased complexity_ to which I allude in the above is _the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time._ I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.
> 
> Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.
> 
> On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.
> 
> Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?
> 
> Again, that's the theory.
> 
> Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be _no_, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is _yes_, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.
> 
> There's that catch 22 again.
> 
> In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.
> 
> I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you?
> 
> Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .
> 
> Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.
> 
> On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? *
> 
> I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
> I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
> And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
> or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't what the assertion that "new information or new complexity would violate the 2nd law" even means, so I can't help with that one.  

As for your fascination with _the claim that mutations can never add new information_, who told you that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.*
> 
> What do you mean by, "*Mutations entail a loss of information*"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart.  Clarification:  I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance.  That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain.  A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist.  Today, I'll get into what I think.
> 
> So let's get back to it.
> 
> Earlier, I asked the following:
> 
> Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​
> (You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)
> 
> You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity, the _increased complexity_ to which I allude in the above is _the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time._ I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.
> 
> Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.
> 
> On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.
> 
> Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?
> 
> Again, that's the theory.
> 
> Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be _no_, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is _yes_, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.
> 
> There's that catch 22 again.
> 
> In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.
> 
> I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you?
> 
> Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .
> 
> Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.
> 
> On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? *
> 
> I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
> I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
> And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
> or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't what the assertion that "new information or new complexity would violate the 2nd law" even means, so I can't help with that one.
> 
> As for your fascination with _the claim that mutations can never add new information_, who told you that?
Click to expand...


*As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?*

I heard it somewhere around here recently.......


_Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.

(17) Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum _

Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, because i don't pay any attention to that. I don't have an irrational fear of GMO foods that was created by lying bloggers. That's your department.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the nutritional science department.  Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.
> 
> In the Bible, God told Adam and Eve (and us) that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their and our food.  GMO foods are not that.
> 
> We also know from the Bible that Jesus ate meat.  Thus, I had a nice lunch today and am greatly satisfied.
Click to expand...


*Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors. *

Where did you learn that? Was it the voices in your head telling you that? LOL!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.


Lie. I would say you made that up, but we both know you grifted it from a charlatan's blog you never fully read or understood.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not a whit what you believe about evolution,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not a whit what you think about common design.  God laughs at you.  I laugh at you.  I open my mouth and haha comes out.  I laugh and laugh and laugh at you.  See Ringtone laugh.  Laugh, Ringtone, laugh.
> 
> View attachment 461928
Click to expand...


laughing as your attempt at argument comes crashing to the ground.

It’s embarrassing to everyone but you that you’re reduced to cutting and pasting your usual cartoons.


----------



## Hollie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.*
> 
> What do you mean by, "*Mutations entail a loss of information*"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart.  Clarification:  I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance.  That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain.  A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist.  Today, I'll get into what I think.
> 
> So let's get back to it.
> 
> Earlier, I asked the following:
> 
> Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​
> (You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)
> 
> You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity, the _increased complexity_ to which I allude in the above is _the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time._ I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.
> 
> Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.
> 
> On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.
> 
> Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?
> 
> Again, that's the theory.
> 
> Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be _no_, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is _yes_, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.
> 
> There's that catch 22 again.
> 
> In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.
> 
> I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you?
> 
> Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .
> 
> Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.
> 
> On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? *
> 
> I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
> I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
> And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
> or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't what the assertion that "new information or new complexity would violate the 2nd law" even means, so I can't help with that one.
> 
> As for your fascination with _the claim that mutations can never add new information_, who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?*
> 
> I heard it somewhere around here recently.......
> 
> 
> _Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.
> 
> (17) Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum _
> 
> Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
Click to expand...

When you identify his gaffes, errors and false claims, he adds you to his creepy poetry list.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of speciation, my point is that it's not natural selection.  It's always been genetic mutations.  So I don't think any selections are responsible for speciation.
> 
> The examples are stasis when no mutations occur or are unsuccessful in creating a new species and all of the speciations which have no transitional fossils.  The same "examples" that led to the theories of punctuated equilibrium and saltation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A genetic mutation is the cause, natural selection is the effect ... this is easy to demonstrate in the lab with fruit flies ... sounds like you're pointing out a few cases where this doesn't happen, like in the shark family ... they've changed very little over the past 200 millions year, but it's a good design, maybe improvements aren't needed ... and there's absolutely noting in the math that says species must change over time ... our _k_ value being very close to zero ...
> 
> Natural selection allows for both punctuated equilibrium and saltation ... just change your _k_ value up and down ...
> 
> ETA:  What is there about punctuated equilibrium and saltation that doesn't allow "in between" pathways? ...
Click to expand...

Nothing.  It's just that gradual changes are seldom seen in the fossil record.  

I don't believe I am pointing out the cases where this doesn't happen.  I believe I am questioning natural selection as the driver for speciation based upon stasis (i.e. no gradual changes) and lack of transitional fossils (i.e. fast changes in speciation).


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *(1) Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral.
> 
> (2) Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.*



I'm sorry.  I thought you read my post in the above.  Please note the realities per a deeper analysis of the meanings of the two statements in the above.  Note the emboldened.  Note that the terms *observed, deletions, *and* preexisting *are emphasized.  (Statement 1) Then explain how new information is added when preexisting information is either deleted, altered or duplicated.  (Statement 2) Then explain why one should necessarily believe that which is hypothesized to occur when it has never been observed to occur?  Then define what _you_ mean by new information.

Thanks.

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. *In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.*​​*Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?*​​Again, that's the theory.​​*Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, *the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is _yes_, albeit, *depending on how one defines new information*.​​P.S. Be careful to not talk out your ass as one who has not studied the models of gene duplication of evolutionary theory. Thanks again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of speciation, my point is that it's not natural selection.  It's always been genetic mutations.  So I don't think any selections are responsible for speciation.
> 
> The examples are stasis when no mutations occur or are unsuccessful in creating a new species and all of the speciations which have no transitional fossils.  The same "examples" that led to the theories of punctuated equilibrium and saltation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A genetic mutation is the cause, natural selection is the effect ... this is easy to demonstrate in the lab with fruit flies ... sounds like you're pointing out a few cases where this doesn't happen, like in the shark family ... they've changed very little over the past 200 millions year, but it's a good design, maybe improvements aren't needed ... and there's absolutely noting in the math that says species must change over time ... our _k_ value being very close to zero ...
> 
> Natural selection allows for both punctuated equilibrium and saltation ... just change your _k_ value up and down ...
> 
> ETA:  What is there about punctuated equilibrium and saltation that doesn't allow "in between" pathways? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing.  It's just that gradual changes are seldom seen in the fossil record.
> 
> I don't believe I am pointing out the cases where this doesn't happen.  I believe I am questioning natural selection as the driver for speciation based upon stasis (i.e. no gradual changes) and lack of transitional fossils (i.e. fast changes in speciation).
Click to expand...

You should be looking at what happens with isolated populations. Evolutionary change occurs more rapidly in smaller populations (mathematics). So, when a population becomes isolated from a large, centralized population, speciation can occur via a still relatively gradual process (not one generation, still may be a million years). If this new species then thrives, we are more likely to find its fossils. Just as we are more likely to find the fossils of the species of the larger, parent population. What we are less likely to find are the fossils of the isolated population while it was small and changing relatively quickly, compared to the larger, centralized population from which it was separated.

This is Gould's model for punctuated equilibrium. It still relies on natural selection, and on all the other known drivers of evolution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(1) Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral.
> 
> (2) Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  I thought you read my post in the above.  Please note the realities per a deeper analysis of the meanings of the two statements in the above.  Note the emboldened.  Note that the terms *observed, deletions, *and* preexisting *are emphasized.  (Statement 1) Then explain how new information is added when preexisting information is either deleted, altered or duplicated.  (Statement 2) Then explain why one should necessarily believe that which is hypothesized to occur when it has never been observed to occur?  Then define what _you_ mean by new information.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. *In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.*​​*Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?*​​Again, that's the theory.​​*Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, *the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is _yes_, albeit, *depending on how one defines new information*.​
> Please note that upon a deeper analysis of the meanings of the two statements in the above
Click to expand...


*I'm sorry. I thought you read my post in the above. *

Don't be sorry, I did.

Was either of those proof for your claim?

*Then explain how new information is added when preexisting information is either deleted, altered or duplicated.  *

So now new information _can_ be added?
As long as old information is deleted, altered or duplicated?

So your original claim was wrong? 

*Then define what you mean by new information.*

You made the claim....you define "new information".

*Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information,*

If you change a page of text by fliping the first and second letters, the third and fourth letters, the fifth and sixth letters, etc. etc., you don't have a different text?

*Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is yes,*

Technically speaking, your original claim was wrong. Cool!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

*"What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendent species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.

"Eldredge and I refer to this scheme as the model of punctuated equilibria. “ SJ Gould*


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Universal Gardeners Theories "

* A New Knock Key **


Ringtone said:


> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> _Hocus Pocus_
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.


The theorists of intelligent design , raving about a god within the gaps of evolution , beg a question of whether those same intelligent design theists are willing to worship extraterrestrial beings as gawd should it be established that they setup this terrarium garden .









						Anunnaki - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Universal Gardeners Theories "
> 
> * A New Knock Key **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> _Hocus Pocus_
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of intelligent design raving about the god within the gaps begs the question whether those same intelligent design theists are willing to worship extraterrestrial beings as gawd should it be established that they setup this terrarium garden .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anunnaki - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

What really fails about the whole "ID" scam is that the proponents are proposing that God is intelligent and capable enough to have designed and created everything, including all species. Yet, somehow, suggesting God was smart and capable enough to do this via deterministic evolution is just off the table for them.

This is what puts the lie to these charlatans and their silly rebranding effort..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yet, somehow, suggesting God was smart and capable enough to do this via deterministic evolution is just off the table for them.



Yeah, God is a college student cramming for finals instead of building a giant Rube Goldberg device.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, somehow, suggesting God was smart and capable enough to do this via deterministic evolution is just off the table for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, God is a college student cramming for finals instead of building a giant Rube Goldberg device.
Click to expand...

And it has nothing to do with theism. It has only to do with clinging to one myth from one religion.  The same people have no problem whatsoever looking at scientific pursuit as "studying God's creation", the rest of the time. Quantum Mechanics? Sweet, thanks for the computer and cell phone. Relativity? Sweet thanks for the satellites. Electromagnetic theory? Sweet, thanks for the heat and light.

Using every scientific field known to man to show evolution is a fact? No way, Jose.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.*
> 
> What do you mean by, "*Mutations entail a loss of information*"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart.  Clarification:  I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance.  That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain.  A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist.  Today, I'll get into what I think.
> 
> So let's get back to it.
> 
> Earlier, I asked the following:
> 
> Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​
> (You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)
> 
> You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity, the _increased complexity_ to which I allude in the above is _the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time._ I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.
> 
> Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.
> 
> On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.
> 
> Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?
> 
> Again, that's the theory.
> 
> Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be _no_, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is _yes_, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.
> 
> There's that catch 22 again.
> 
> In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.
> 
> I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you?
> 
> Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .
> 
> Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.
> 
> On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? *
> 
> I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
> I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
> And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
> or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't what the assertion that "new information or new complexity would violate the 2nd law" even means, so I can't help with that one.
> 
> As for your fascination with _the claim that mutations can never add new information_, who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?*
> 
> I heard it somewhere around here recently.......
> 
> 
> _Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.
> 
> (17) Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum _
> 
> Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you identify his gaffes, errors and false claims, he adds you to his creepy poetry list.
Click to expand...


Lol on the poetry.  I think he only writes it to you.

I was hopin' you pop in on this thread because it's good that people naturally are against big corporations with their _secret_ GMO ingredients or feed.  It's practically like China to them.  Remember I told you who has the power of death?  That's right.  It is another reason GMO foods are bad for you, but it's practically everywhere.

What am I gonna say?  Don't eat it b/c of the boogeyman haha?


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......



Now for the special treatment that must be given to your claim that someone, unnamed, but alluded to as "some joker talking out his ass". . . .  

Who could that be?  

I know someone who said that* "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome", *namely, *Ringtone*.  I don't know of anyone but you, *Toddsterpatriot*, who said that *"mutations can never add new information".  *

Huh.  Those two statements do not appear to be the same.  Maybe they don't have the same meaning. I wonder what the possible difference in meaning could be.   

Just kidding.  As one who is versed in the pertinent potentialities of the genome, as one who knows that the term gene is used in two different ways (to denote a piece of DNA that codes for a protein or codes for a trait), and as one who has studied the models of gene duplication per evolutionary theory: I understand that previously nonexistent expressions (or traits) can arise in populations due to preexisting, albeit, latently embedded information.

Is this new information?  Well, it's new information as expressively realized in any given population and is likely to be preserved if it's significantly adaptive.

Which brings us to the other half of my post in the above that someone disregarded . . . or did someone who talks out of his ass fail to grasp the ramifications?  

There's that catch 22 again.  It depends how one defines new information.​​In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​​I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ​​Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​​Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​​


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.*
> 
> What do you mean by, "*Mutations entail a loss of information*"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart.  Clarification:  I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance.  That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain.  A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist.  Today, I'll get into what I think.
> 
> So let's get back to it.
> 
> Earlier, I asked the following:
> 
> Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​
> (You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)
> 
> You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity, the _increased complexity_ to which I allude in the above is _the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time._ I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.
> 
> Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.
> 
> On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.
> 
> Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?
> 
> Again, that's the theory.
> 
> Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be _no_, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is _yes_, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.
> 
> There's that catch 22 again.
> 
> In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.
> 
> I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you?
> 
> Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .
> 
> Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.
> 
> On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? *
> 
> I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
> I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
> And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
> or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't what the assertion that "new information or new complexity would violate the 2nd law" even means, so I can't help with that one.
> 
> As for your fascination with _the claim that mutations can never add new information_, who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?*
> 
> I heard it somewhere around here recently.......
> 
> 
> _Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.
> 
> (17) Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum _
> 
> Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you identify his gaffes, errors and false claims, he adds you to his creepy poetry list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol on the poetry.  I think he only writes it to you.
> 
> I was hopin' you pop in on this thread because it's good that people naturally are against big corporations with their _secret_ GMO ingredients or feed.  It's practically like China to them.  Remember I told you who has the power of death?  That's right.  It is another reason GMO foods are bad for you, but it's practically everywhere.
> 
> What am I gonna say?  Don't eat it b/c of the boogeyman haha?
Click to expand...

LOL on the poetry, yes. I think the boy’s advances toward William Lane Craig have been rejected so he’s on a rebound of sorts.

Who has the power of death? An invented character?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the special treatment that must be given to your claim that someone, unnamed, but alluded to as "some joker talking out his ass". . . .
> 
> Who could that be?
> 
> I know someone who said that* "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome", *namely, *Ringtone*.  I don't know of anyone but you, *Toddsterpatriot*, who said that *"mutations can never add new information".  *
> 
> Huh.  Those two statements do not appear to be the same.  Maybe they don't have the same meaning. I wonder what the possible difference in meaning could be.
> 
> Just kidding.  As one who is versed in the pertinent potentialities of the genome, as one who knows that the term gene is used in two different ways (to denote a piece of DNA that codes for a protein or codes for a trait), and as one who has studied the models of gene duplication per evolutionary theory: I understand that previously nonexistent expressions (or traits) can arise in populations due to preexisting, albeit, latently embedded information.
> 
> Is this new information?  Well, it's new information as expressively realized in any given population and is likely to be preserved if it's significantly adaptive.
> 
> Which brings us to the other half of my post in the above that someone disregarded . . . or did someone who talks out of his ass fail to grasp the ramifications?
> 
> There's that catch 22 again.  It depends how one defines new information.​​In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​​I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ​​Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​​Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​​
Click to expand...

Understanding the ramifications of the potentialities of Disco’tute slogan-speak, we see the dangers of ignorant religious zealots with just enough of the wrong information to make themselves a total embarrassment: “scrambled DNA molecules”.

It’s just too funny.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> When you identify his gaffes, errors and false claims, he adds you to his creepy poetry list.



He didn't identify a gaff, you twit.  He made the gaff, just as you routinely do.  In fact, you have now shown your ass once again.  As one supposedly versed in evolutionary theory, how did you fail to detect the essence of his ignorance regarding latent, genomic information and gene (trait) information?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the special treatment that must be given to your claim that someone, unnamed, but alluded to as "some joker talking out his ass". . . .
> 
> Who could that be?
> 
> I know someone who said that* "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome", *namely, *Ringtone*.  I don't know of anyone but you, *Toddsterpatriot*, who said that *"mutations can never add new information".  *
> 
> Huh.  Those two statements do not appear to be the same.  Maybe they don't have the same meaning. I wonder what the possible difference in meaning could be.
> 
> Just kidding.  As one who is versed in the pertinent potentialities of the genome, as one who knows that the term gene is used in two different ways (to denote a piece of DNA that codes for a protein or codes for a trait), and as one who has studied the models of gene duplication per evolutionary theory: I understand that previously nonexistent expressions (or traits) can arise in populations due to preexisting, albeit, latently embedded information.
> 
> Is this new information?  Well, it's new information as expressively realized in any given population and is likely to be preserved if it's significantly adaptive.
> 
> Which brings us to the other half of my post in the above that someone disregarded . . . or did someone who talks out of his ass fail to grasp the ramifications?
> 
> There's that catch 22 again.  It depends how one defines new information.​​In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​​I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ​​Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​​Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​​
Click to expand...

_I know someone who said that* "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome", *namely, *Ringtone*. I don't know of anyone but you, *Toddsterpatriot*, who said that *"mutations can never add new information".* _

Wow, that seems like a major difference.....not really.

So did you ever post your proof that "_*mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"*_.... Or did you already admit you were wrong? 

*It depends how one defines new information.   *

Again, you made the claim....post your definiton.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> It's not just GMO foods.  Many people try to just eat non-GMO foods for their nutrition.
> 
> C'mon, you're avoiding what GMO foods you like to eat.  Thus, it appears you are running away from GMO foods because they're scary and can kill you earlier than your 70s and 80s.
> 
> It's not stupid if the foods you eat can kill you and give you tumors.
> 
> We just had a report today on the non-GMO foods market -- Worldwide Non-GMO Foods Industry to 2025 - Key Drivers, Challenges and Trends.
> 
> I know what you'd like to eat.  Chicken butts.  5 cents a cut.  Or pork butts.  Any kind of butts haha.
> 
> For those who do not care to indulge in GMO and deadly foods, you can look here -- Verified Products – The Non-GMO Project.




Hey, James, still looking for that yes/no answer. See post #436. Thanks.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you identify his gaffes, errors and false claims, he adds you to his creepy poetry list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't identify a gaff, you twit.  He made the gaff, just as you routinely do.  In fact, you have now shown your ass once again.  As one supposedly versed in evolutionary theory, how did you fail to detect the essence of his ignorance regarding latent, genomic information and gene (trait) information?
> 
> No, Hollie, I only share my poetry with smack-talking know-nothings and liars.  Mere ignorance is not a crime.  I suppose we'll soon find out something about *Toddsterpatriot's* character given my last two posts.
Click to expand...

He identified another of your embarrassing gaffes. You routinely rattle on about matters of science you know little about. It’s why you open threads about matters of biology using silly YouTube videos hosted by non-biologist charlatans from the Disco’tute.

I think we found out something about your character with your emotional tirades.

I’ll expect you to respond to this post with pointless spam poetry.

Thanks


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you?


This should have been the thread title and the entire content of every one of your posts. But you lack the honesty and integrity of character simply to do this.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just GMO foods.  Many people try to just eat non-GMO foods for their nutrition.
> 
> C'mon, you're avoiding what GMO foods you like to eat.  Thus, it appears you are running away from GMO foods because they're scary and can kill you earlier than your 70s and 80s.
> 
> It's not stupid if the foods you eat can kill you and give you tumors.
> 
> We just had a report today on the non-GMO foods market -- Worldwide Non-GMO Foods Industry to 2025 - Key Drivers, Challenges and Trends.
> 
> I know what you'd like to eat.  Chicken butts.  5 cents a cut.  Or pork butts.  Any kind of butts haha.
> 
> For those who do not care to indulge in GMO and deadly foods, you can look here -- Verified Products – The Non-GMO Project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, James, still looking for that yes/no answer. See post #436. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Hey, charlatan. Still looking for that “_*General Theory Of Supernatural Creation”*_

See many posts requesting such. Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wow, that seems like a major difference.....not really.



There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Again, you made the claim....post your definition.



I did, in detail, in the major post in the above, and I just distinguished two forms of genetic information defined in the major post in the above in this post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that seems like a major difference.....not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you made the claim....post your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did, in detail, in the major post in the above, and I just distinguished two forms of genetic information defined in the major post in the above in this post.
Click to expand...


*You're claiming there's no difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? *

A mutation can add either? Just one?


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> A mutation can add either? Just one?



Your question makes no sense.

There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information?  I illustratively defined each in the above.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mutation can add either? Just one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You question makes no sense.
> 
> There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.
> 
> Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information?  I illustratively defined each in the above.
Click to expand...


You claimed "_*mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"*_ 

Is this still your claim, or have you modified your claim?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mutation can add either? Just one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You question makes no sense.
> 
> There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.
> 
> Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information?  I illustratively defined each in the above.
Click to expand...

Hey son...do that bit again where you plagiarize the work and comments of scientists for 10 pages, then spend 10 pages saying all the scientists are incompetent liars. That's my favorite bit you YECers do.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.
> 
> Mutations can never add new information.*



There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

The first statement is true; the second statement, which I did not make, is false.

Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.
> 
> Mutations can never add new information.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.
> 
> Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.
Click to expand...


_*Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*_

Link?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.
> 
> Mutations can never add new information.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.
> 
> The first statement is true; the second statement, which I did not make, is false.
> 
> Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you could relate some of those_ dramatic differences™ _that were a part of the discussion among the Disco’tute charlatans in their YouTube based infomercial clown show?.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Technically speaking, your original claim was wrong.



No.  It depends on YOUR definition, not mine.

Do you regard the following to entail the generation of new information, and if so, why?

In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​​Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​​Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _*Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*_
> 
> Link?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.
> 
> Mutations can never add new information.*



There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which goes to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

The first statement is true; the second statement, which I did not make, is false.

Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*_
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.
> 
> Mutations can never add new information.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which goes to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.
> 
> The first statement is true; the second statement, which I did not make, is false.
> 
> Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.
Click to expand...

What is the _dramatic difference™ ?_

What is this_ information? _The charlatans at the Disco’tute clown show used the term_ information™ _but never defined that term_._


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, because i don't pay any attention to that. I don't have an irrational fear of GMO foods that was created by lying bloggers. That's your department.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the nutritional science department.  Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.
> 
> In the Bible, God told Adam and Eve (and us) that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their and our food.  GMO foods are not that.
> 
> We also know from the Bible that Jesus ate meat.  Thus, I had a nice lunch today and am greatly satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors. *
> 
> Where did you learn that? Was it the voices in your head telling you that? LOL!
Click to expand...


Between you who never evolves in this forum and remains at status quo (do not pass go, do not collect $200), I rather trust the intuition or the Holy Spirit.  GMO foods are bad and I provided a couple of links to it.  I've heard it causes tumors, but others call it cancer.  Both are bad.

I have to thank Sunsettommy for admitting *evolution is artificial selection* and leading to this discussion.  God created natural selection.  It's not a slam dunk argument like being against abiogenesis or singularity (claim of actual infinity by the atheist scientists (!)).

Anyway, it is what it is and you atheists can eat all the GMO foods that you want.  I think one day, GMO foods makers will be forced to label their products as containing GMO.  It gives you a strange idea of what the Kentucky Derby is like.  I like horse racing a lot, but it's eerie that we are watching some type of awkward genetic relationship between the horses.  I can accept a brother, sister, and distant cousin, but a stranger who is genetic mutation  is a bit much.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Who has the power of death? An invented character?



Just continue not worrying about GMO and eating GMO foods and you'll find out sooner than later.


----------



## Ringtone

Monk-Eye said:


> The theorists of intelligent design , raving about a god within the gaps of evolution , beg a question of whether those same intelligent design theists are willing to worship extraterrestrial beings as gawd should it be established that they setup this terrarium garden .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anunnaki - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



Abiogenesis is impossible, your atheist-of-the-gaps fallacy notwithstanding.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has the power of death? An invented character?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just continue not worrying about GMO and eating GMO foods and you'll find out sooner than later.
Click to expand...

Your other god, “Satan”, will settle a score?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theorists of intelligent design , raving about a god within the gaps of evolution , beg a question of whether those same intelligent design theists are willing to worship extraterrestrial beings as gawd should it be established that they setup this terrarium garden .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anunnaki - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis is impossible, your atheist-of-the-gaps fallacy notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

It’s not impossible when we know with certainty it happened, notwithstanding your hurt feelings.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> It's not just GMO foods.  Many people try to just eat non-GMO foods for their nutrition.
> 
> C'mon, you're avoiding what GMO foods you like to eat.  Thus, it appears you are running away from GMO foods because they're scary and can kill you earlier than your 70s and 80s.
> 
> It's not stupid if the foods you eat can kill you and give you tumors.
> 
> We just had a report today on the non-GMO foods market -- Worldwide Non-GMO Foods Industry to 2025 - Key Drivers, Challenges and Trends.
> 
> I know what you'd like to eat.  Chicken butts.  5 cents a cut.  Or pork butts.  Any kind of butts haha.
> 
> For those who do not care to indulge in GMO and deadly foods, you can look here -- Verified Products – The Non-GMO Project.



Hey, James, still looking for that yes/no answer. See post #436. Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> It’s not impossible when we know with certainty it happened, notwithstanding your hurt feelings.



How do you know abiogenesis happened?   Tell me more about this atheist-of-the-gaps fantasy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> How do you know abiogenesis happened?


Once there was no life, then there was life. Abiogenesis is just the word for life arising from non-life.

Where once there was no star, now there is a star. "Star formation" connects these two states.  We don't have to know all the details of HOW stars form to know that they do. To know that star formation is a fact. Similarly, we don't have to know the details of abiogenesis to know it happened.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> The first statement is true



Link?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just GMO foods.  Many people try to just eat non-GMO foods for their nutrition.
> 
> C'mon, you're avoiding what GMO foods you like to eat.  Thus, it appears you are running away from GMO foods because they're scary and can kill you earlier than your 70s and 80s.
> 
> It's not stupid if the foods you eat can kill you and give you tumors.
> 
> We just had a report today on the non-GMO foods market -- Worldwide Non-GMO Foods Industry to 2025 - Key Drivers, Challenges and Trends.
> 
> I know what you'd like to eat.  Chicken butts.  5 cents a cut.  Or pork butts.  Any kind of butts haha.
> 
> For those who do not care to indulge in GMO and deadly foods, you can look here -- Verified Products – The Non-GMO Project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, James, still looking for that yes/no answer. See post #436. Thanks.
Click to expand...

“The atheist-of-the-gaps fallacy is the metaphysical apriority of naturalism, i.e., the puerile belief that nature did it!  —Michael Rawlings (a.k.a., Ringtone)”

If you could post your “_*General Theory of Supernaturalism™*_” we could examine your data for the supernatural. If the natural world is somehow subservient to your supernatural world and supernatural realms, show us the magic. If there are supernatural forces that you claim to exist but refuse to demonstrate and you choose to keep those to yourself, how does anyone come to a conclusion about your supernatural realms?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, because i don't pay any attention to that. I don't have an irrational fear of GMO foods that was created by lying bloggers. That's your department.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the nutritional science department.  Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.
> 
> In the Bible, God told Adam and Eve (and us) that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their and our food.  GMO foods are not that.
> 
> We also know from the Bible that Jesus ate meat.  Thus, I had a nice lunch today and am greatly satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors. *
> 
> Where did you learn that? Was it the voices in your head telling you that? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Between you who never evolves in this forum and remains at status quo (do not pass go, do not collect $200), I rather trust the intuition or the Holy Spirit.  GMO foods are bad and I provided a couple of links to it.  I've heard it causes tumors, but others call it cancer.  Both are bad.
> 
> I have to thank Sunsettommy for admitting *evolution is artificial selection* and leading to this discussion.  God created natural selection.  It's not a slam dunk argument like being against abiogenesis or singularity (claim of actual infinity by the atheist scientists (!)).
> 
> Anyway, it is what it is and you atheists can eat all the GMO foods that you want.  I think one day, GMO foods makers will be forced to label their products as containing GMO.  It gives you a strange idea of what the Kentucky Derby is like.  I like horse racing a lot, but it's eerie that we are watching some type of awkward genetic relationship between the horses.  I can accept a brother, sister, and distant cousin, but a stranger who is genetic mutation  is a bit much.
Click to expand...


*GMO foods are bad and I provided a couple of links to it.  *

Which ones? The fake one about the killer tomato?

* I've heard it causes tumors*

LOL!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, because i don't pay any attention to that. I don't have an irrational fear of GMO foods that was created by lying bloggers. That's your department.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the nutritional science department.  Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.
> 
> In the Bible, God told Adam and Eve (and us) that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their and our food.  GMO foods are not that.
> 
> We also know from the Bible that Jesus ate meat.  Thus, I had a nice lunch today and am greatly satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors. *
> 
> Where did you learn that? Was it the voices in your head telling you that? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Between you who never evolves in this forum and remains at status quo (do not pass go, do not collect $200), I rather trust the intuition or the Holy Spirit.  GMO foods are bad and I provided a couple of links to it.  I've heard it causes tumors, but others call it cancer.  Both are bad.
> 
> I have to thank Sunsettommy for admitting *evolution is artificial selection* and leading to this discussion.  God created natural selection.  It's not a slam dunk argument like being against abiogenesis or singularity (claim of actual infinity by the atheist scientists (!)).
> 
> Anyway, it is what it is and you atheists can eat all the GMO foods that you want.  I think one day, GMO foods makers will be forced to label their products as containing GMO.  It gives you a strange idea of what the Kentucky Derby is like.  I like horse racing a lot, but it's eerie that we are watching some type of awkward genetic relationship between the horses.  I can accept a brother, sister, and distant cousin, but a stranger who is genetic mutation  is a bit much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *GMO foods are bad and I provided a couple of links to it.  *
> 
> Which ones? The fake one about the killer tomato?
> 
> * I've heard it causes tumors*
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...

This is the retracted study that still gets tossed about in the anti-GMO circles. You can draw a straight line from this, through bloggers and liars, to Bond's mouth :









						Study Linking Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors Is Retracted
					

Publisher withdraws paper despite authors' objections, citing weak evidence




					www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not impossible when we know with certainty it happened, notwithstanding your hurt feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know abiogenesis happened?   Tell me more about this atheist-of-the-gaps fantasy.
Click to expand...

Life exists on the planet. Either life erupted from biological processes or, by your beliefs, one or more gods snapped their eternal digits and magically created existence 6,000 years ago. I’m discounting the alien seeding thing. I’m also discounting your ability to demonstrate any understanding of biology and I’m further discounting your ability to make any rational case for your beliefs in a 6,000 year old planet whipped up by your gods.

Have you ever considered that light reaching this planet from anywhere further than 6,000 light years distant is an unresolvable dilemma for you Flat Earth types?

We know with certainty, you don’t, but thinking humans know with certainty that organisms evolve. We know with certainty, you don’t, but thinking humans know the planet is billions of years old and the processes of chemistry and biology have had almost as long to interact.

So, tell us about that Ark cruise.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I've heard it causes tumors*
> 
> LOL!



Tumors may not be cancerous, but still an unsightly mess -- Is a Tumor Cancer? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

More recently, the worry is getting cancer, but not enough evidence -- Is There Evidence That GMOs Can Cause Cancer? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

It's up to you.  I'm more careful with trying to eat non-GMO foods and opt for grass fed and grain fed beef.

Atheists and their atheist scientists should follow evolution and eat GMO foods.  Practice what you preach.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of speciation, my point is that it's not natural selection.  It's always been genetic mutations.  So I don't think any selections are responsible for speciation.
> 
> The examples are stasis when no mutations occur or are unsuccessful in creating a new species and all of the speciations which have no transitional fossils.  The same "examples" that led to the theories of punctuated equilibrium and saltation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A genetic mutation is the cause, natural selection is the effect ... this is easy to demonstrate in the lab with fruit flies ... sounds like you're pointing out a few cases where this doesn't happen, like in the shark family ... they've changed very little over the past 200 millions year, but it's a good design, maybe improvements aren't needed ... and there's absolutely noting in the math that says species must change over time ... our _k_ value being very close to zero ...
> 
> Natural selection allows for both punctuated equilibrium and saltation ... just change your _k_ value up and down ...
> 
> ETA:  What is there about punctuated equilibrium and saltation that doesn't allow "in between" pathways? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing.  It's just that gradual changes are seldom seen in the fossil record.
> 
> I don't believe I am pointing out the cases where this doesn't happen.  I believe I am questioning natural selection as the driver for speciation based upon stasis (i.e. no gradual changes) and lack of transitional fossils (i.e. fast changes in speciation).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be looking at what happens with isolated populations. Evolutionary change occurs more rapidly in smaller populations (mathematics). So, when a population becomes isolated from a large, centralized population, speciation can occur via a still relatively gradual process (not one generation, still may be a million years). If this new species then thrives, we are more likely to find its fossils. Just as we are more likely to find the fossils of the species of the larger, parent population. What we are less likely to find are the fossils of the isolated population while it was small and changing relatively quickly, compared to the larger, centralized population from which it was separated.
> 
> This is Gould's model for punctuated equilibrium. It still relies on natural selection, and on all the other known drivers of evolution.
Click to expand...

I understand the theory on large and small populations.  That MAY address stasis but I don't believe that addresses the lack of transitional fossils.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Comparing Modern Stochastic Conditions With Dynamic Transformation Opportunities From Antiquity "

* Deep Sleep Rapid Eye Dreams Reverse Learning Accelerated Growth Assimilation **



Ringtone said:


> Abiogenesis is impossible, your atheist-of-the-gaps fallacy notwithstanding.


To presume that nature itself is not infinite , while extolling that gawd is infinite , is a facetious assertion .

An intelligent design creation in full form theory ascribes that an omniscient , omnipotent , omnipresent being created a garden east of eden .

An intelligent design creation in full form theory could not exclude that extraterrestrials created a garden east of some region in space known as eden .

A theist for intelligent design would not concede to extraterrestrials as gawd if they had created the garden of earth .

To presume that nature itself is not infinite , while extolling that gawd is infinite , is a facetious assertion .






						Strange Coincidence Of 365 - Evolution Or Extraterrestrials ?
					

" Strange Coincidence Of 365 - Evolution Or Extraterrestrials ?  "  * Random Luck Or A Intentional Sign *  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/365_(number)  It is the smallest number which has more than one expression as a sum of consecutive square numbers: 10x10 + 11x11 + 12x12 = 13x13 + 14x14 = 365



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




A time could have arisen eons before modern stasis which is more dynamic and less stochastic , whereby rapid transformations of biological adaptation were possible ; perhaps some opportunity for conception begin a processes which have analogous parallels in developmental stages such as neonatal , or adolescence , or puberty , or senescence , or metamorphosis .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've heard it causes tumors*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumors may not be cancerous, but still an unsightly mess -- Is a Tumor Cancer? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
> 
> More recently, the worry is getting cancer, but not enough evidence -- Is There Evidence That GMOs Can Cause Cancer? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
> 
> It's up to you.  I'm more careful with trying to eat non-GMO foods and opt for grass fed and grain fed beef.
> 
> Atheists and their atheist scientists should follow evolution and eat GMO foods.  Practice what you preach.
Click to expand...

By what mechanism would a GMO cause a tumor? A GMO basically adds information to code for a protein. They arent mysterious proteins. We know them and can easily test them. So what is the magical mechanism for creating tumors that worries you, yet eludes the scientific community that creates amd tests GMOs?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> That MAY address stasis


It absolutely does. And remember: we are explaining APPARENT stasis. I.E., there are still large time gaps in our very incomplete fossil record.

It also does completely explain the absence of a transitional fossil between two species. It is literally the reason Gould et. al. formed the idea in the first place. I addressed that directly: the population changing more rapidly is much, much smaller, thus making it much less likely to find fossils. The reason we DO find fossils of the new species is that it found a well suited form that then thrived and led to bigger populations. Bigger populations = more likely for us to find a fossil. Did you miss that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've heard it causes tumors*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumors may not be cancerous, but still an unsightly mess -- Is a Tumor Cancer? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
> 
> More recently, the worry is getting cancer, but not enough evidence -- Is There Evidence That GMOs Can Cause Cancer? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
> 
> It's up to you.  I'm more careful with trying to eat non-GMO foods and opt for grass fed and grain fed beef.
> 
> Atheists and their atheist scientists should follow evolution and eat GMO foods.  Practice what you preach.
Click to expand...


One person who may have had an allergic reaction.
Where is all the cancer evidence?


----------



## Ringtone

Monk-Eye said:


> To presume that nature itself is not infinite , while extolling that gawd is infinite , is a facetious assertion.



Correct!  Insofar as you're talking about an _actual infinite_.  God is not an actual infinite. You want to take that issue up with *James Bond.*  He insists that God is an actual infinite, not I.



Monk-Eye said:


> An intelligent design creation in full form theory could not exclude that extraterrestrials created a garden east of some region in space known as eden.



Objectively speaking, I Agree.



Monk-Eye said:


> A theist for intelligent design would not concede to extraterrestrials as gawd if they had created the garden of earth .



Insofar as you're talking about a classical theist, that's correct.



Monk-Eye said:


> A time could have arisen eons before modern stasis which is more dynamic and less stochastic , whereby rapid transformations of biological adaptation were possible ; perhaps some opportunity for conception begin a processes which have analogous parallels in developmental stages such as neonatal , or adolescence , or puberty , or senescence , or metamorphosis .



Objectively speaking, perhaps.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Life exists on the planet. Either life erupted from biological processes or, by your beliefs, one or more gods snapped their eternal digits and magically created existence 6,000 years ago. I’m discounting the alien seeding thing. I’m also discounting your ability to demonstrate any understanding of biology and I’m further discounting your ability to make any rational case for your beliefs in a 6,000 year old planet whipped up by your gods.
> 
> Have you ever considered that light reaching this planet from anywhere further than 6,000 light years distant is an unresolvable dilemma for you Flat Earth types?
> 
> We know with certainty, you don’t, but thinking humans know with certainty that organisms evolve. We know with certainty, you don’t, but thinking humans know the planet is billions of years old and the processes of chemistry and biology have had almost as long to interact.
> 
> So, tell us about that Ark cruise.



Just how stupid are you? I have told you at least three times now that I'm not a YEC.

Take your YEC thingies up with* James Bond*.  

Moreover, the Bible does not put an age on the Earth, let alone on the Universe. Ushrian hermeneutics and the biblical text are not the same thing. I already know you believe in the fantasy of abiogenesis. You're repeating yourself. Now explain the processes of chemical evolution up from prebiotic precursors to life. I'm all .

Thanks.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> I have told you at least three times now that I'm not a YEC.


Liar.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> One person who may have had an allergic reaction.
> Where is all the cancer evidence?


Did you read my last post yet?  Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One person who may have had an allergic reaction.
> Where is all the cancer evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read my last post yet?  Thanks.
Click to expand...


Did it have proof of your claim.... *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've heard it causes tumors*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumors may not be cancerous, but still an unsightly mess -- Is a Tumor Cancer? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
> 
> More recently, the worry is getting cancer, but not enough evidence -- Is There Evidence That GMOs Can Cause Cancer? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
> 
> It's up to you.  I'm more careful with trying to eat non-GMO foods and opt for grass fed and grain fed beef.
> 
> Atheists and their atheist scientists should follow evolution and eat GMO foods.  Practice what you preach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One person who may have had an allergic reaction.
> Where is all the cancer evidence?
Click to expand...


Eat the GMO foods and you could be it.  I think we'll have the evidence and know more about it this coming decade.

One can't get cheap, fast, and good.  One can only get two out of the three.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I think we'll have the evidence and know more about it this coming decade.


haha... so things we don't know yet are the reason for your beliefs.

A moment of accidental honesty and clarity from a magical thinker.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> I think we'll have the evidence and know more about it this coming decade.



So you lied when you said we already know.....thanks


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> Eat the GMO foods and you could be it.  I think we'll have the evidence and know more about it this coming decade.
> 
> One can't get cheap, fast, and good.  One can only get two out of the three.



Hey, *James*, still waiting on you to explain precisely how the actually infinite only exists in the supernatural world, indeed, still waiting on you to explain to God and everybody what the _beep_ that even means. Thanks.

Winning!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Winning!


And again...how strange, considering the scoreboard shows you losing by about eleventy zillion points. You would fail a 7th grade science quiz. So i am curious what you think you are winning.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it have proof of your claim.... *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, you haven't satisfactorily resolved this error in your mind yet. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a dramatic difference between the following two statements:
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*​​*Mutations can never add new information.*​
> The first statement is true, the second statement is arguably false. You attributed the arguably false statement, which I never made, to me out of rank ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that seems like a major difference . . . not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation of what *Toddsterpatriot* is actually claiming, albeit, unwittingly, because he's an arrogant know-nothing of rank fideism:
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information, there's no major difference between the following two statements:
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*​​*Mutations can never add new information.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​First: say _derp derp,_ and tell your significant other to slap you.
> 
> Second: drop and give me 50!
> 
> Third: Link?
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


Your claim isn't my error.

If you can't prove your claim, that's fine.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> “The atheist-of-the-gaps fallacy is the metaphysical apriority of naturalism, i.e., the puerile belief that nature did it!  —Michael Rawlings (a.k.a., Ringtone)”
> 
> If you could post your “_*General Theory of Supernaturalism™*_” we could examine your data for the supernatural. If the natural world is somehow subservient to your supernatural world and supernatural realms, show us the magic. If there are supernatural forces that you claim to exist but refuse to demonstrate and you choose to keep those to yourself, how does anyone come to a conclusion about your supernatural realms?



One has to able to think logically, mathematically and scientifically sound to grasp that "theory."

Sadly, you're not qualified.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your claim isn't my error.
> 
> If you can't prove your claim, that's fine.



The pertinent claim and the attending blunder is yours, and you haven't provided a link for your claim.  See post #606.

Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim isn't my error.
> 
> If you can't prove your claim, that's fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pertinent claim and the attending blunder is yours, and you haven't provided a link for you claim.
Click to expand...


The pertinent claim......is yours.

*Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.* 

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you can't prove it, just say so.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life exists on the planet. Either life erupted from biological processes or, by your beliefs, one or more gods snapped their eternal digits and magically created existence 6,000 years ago. I’m discounting the alien seeding thing. I’m also discounting your ability to demonstrate any understanding of biology and I’m further discounting your ability to make any rational case for your beliefs in a 6,000 year old planet whipped up by your gods.
> 
> Have you ever considered that light reaching this planet from anywhere further than 6,000 light years distant is an unresolvable dilemma for you Flat Earth types?
> 
> We know with certainty, you don’t, but thinking humans know with certainty that organisms evolve. We know with certainty, you don’t, but thinking humans know the planet is billions of years old and the processes of chemistry and biology have had almost as long to interact.
> 
> So, tell us about that Ark cruise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how stupid are you? I have told you at least three times now that I'm not a YEC.
> 
> Take your YEC thingies up with* James Bond*.
> 
> Moreover, the Bible does not put an age on the Earth, let alone on the Universe. Ushrian hermeneutics and the biblical text are not the same thing. I already know you believe in the fantasy of abiogenesis. You're repeating yourself. Now explain the processes of chemical evolution up from prebiotic precursors to life. I'm all .
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

It's truly funny when the YEC'ists become indignant when others acknowledge their belief system. Embrace your YEC'ist belief.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim isn't my error.
> 
> If you can't prove your claim, that's fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pertinent claim and the attending blunder is yours, and you haven't provided a link for your claim.  See post #606.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


With regard to links to one's claims, I'm still waiting for the YEC'ist to post his
"*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*''

To bluster on with claims to supernatural gods performing supernatural acts would suggest the YEC'ist / The Gods Did It'ist supply some evidence to support such a claim.

Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The pertinent claim......is yours.
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*
> 
> Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> If you can't prove it, just say so.



Well, since my claim, unlike yours, is true, the pertinent claim is that the difference between the two statements entails no significant difference is an enormously stupid blunder of a know-nothing. That would be you.

See post #606.

As for my claim, it's already been proven, but your lack of knowledge blinds you.  However, that will be made more and more manifest, perhaps even to the likes of you.  In the meantime. . . .



Toddsterpatriot said:


> So did you ever post your proof that *"mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?*



So did you ever answer the question regarding your definition of information, given that it depends on YOUR definition, not mine? So do you regard the following to entail the generation of new information, and if so, why?, _and_ did you ever acknowledge your inability to grasp the ramifications of the following?:

Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information. . . .​. . . Evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information,* but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy.* A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​​I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ​​Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​​Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​
Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pertinent claim......is yours.
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*
> 
> Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> If you can't prove it, just say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since my claim, unlike yours, is true, the pertinent claim is that the difference between the two statements entails no significant difference is an enormously stupid blunder of a know-nothing. That would be you.
> 
> See post #606.
> 
> As for my claim, it's already been proven, but your lack of knowledge blinds you.  However, that will be made more and more manifest, perhaps even to the likes of you.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did you ever post your proof that *"mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So did you ever answer the question regarding your definition of information, given that it depends on YOUR definition, not mine? So do you regard the following to entail the generation of new information, and if so, why?, _and_ did you ever acknowledge your inability to grasp the ramifications of the following?:
> 
> Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information. . . .​​. . . Evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information,* but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy.* A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​​I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ​​Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​​Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​​
Click to expand...


*As for my claim, it's already been proven, but your lack of knowledge blinds you.  *

Excellent! In what post did you put your proof?

*So did you ever answer the question regarding your definition of information, given that it depends on YOUR definition, not mine?*

My definition doesn't matter, because I didn't make the claim about mutations in post #282, you did.

*Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information. . .*

Information that is translocated, inverted or duplicated results in new information.
The info at the end is different than the info you started with.

If that's your understanding, then thanks for admitting your earlier error.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> I understand the theory on large and small populations.  That MAY address stasis but I don't believe that addresses the lack of transitional fossils.



What transition fossil do we expect to find? ... and where should we find them? ... if the rock strata is discontinuous, and quite a few are, the fossil record within will be discontinuous ... locally here where I live, there are no fossils of any kind ... all Mid-Holocene deposits laid down at 700 ºC ... living matter cooked on impact ...

In the places and lineages that lack that lack transitions pieces, is the rock strata continuous ... _i.e._ an example please ...


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Information that is translocated, inverted or duplicated results in new information.
> The info at the end is different than the info you started with.



Hey, dummy, you just gave an illustrative definition and an example of arguably new information.  I thought you said something about the burden being on me.   Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is _yes, _new information can arise.  But you stupidly think that's a contradiction regarding my stance per the information in genomes.

Alas, ye of little knowledge. 

But, hey, good job overall!

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #524 again.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pertinent claim......is yours.
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*
> 
> Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> If you can't prove it, just say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since my claim, unlike yours, is true, the pertinent claim is that the difference between the two statements entails no significant difference is an enormously stupid blunder of a know-nothing. That would be you.
> 
> See post #606.
> 
> As for my claim, it's already been proven, but your lack of knowledge blinds you.  However, that will be made more and more manifest, perhaps even to the likes of you.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did you ever post your proof that *"mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So did you ever answer the question regarding your definition of information, given that it depends on YOUR definition, not mine? So do you regard the following to entail the generation of new information, and if so, why?, _and_ did you ever acknowledge your inability to grasp the ramifications of the following?:
> 
> Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information. . . .​. . . Evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information,* but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy.* A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​​I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ​​Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​​Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that the Disco'tute tends to churn out such slogans as ''scrambled DNA''. 

Do you folks enjoy being a complete embarrassment?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pertinent claim......is yours.
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*
> 
> Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> If you can't prove it, just say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since my claim, unlike yours, is true, the pertinent claim is that the difference between the two statements entails no significant difference is an enormously stupid blunder of a know-nothing. That would be you.
> 
> See post #606.
> 
> As for my claim, it's already been proven, but your lack of knowledge blinds you.  However, that will be made more and more manifest, perhaps even to the likes of you.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did you ever post your proof that *"mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So did you ever answer the question regarding your definition of information, given that it depends on YOUR definition, not mine? So do you regard the following to entail the generation of new information, and if so, why?, _and_ did you ever acknowledge your inability to grasp the ramifications of the following?:
> 
> Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information. . . .​. . . Evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information,* but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy.* A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​​I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ​​Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​​Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

"decompressed genomes''

Now that's pretty darn funny. 

The YEC'ists are a hoot.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 462413
> 
> It's against the rules to invent quotes attributed to another poster, you should edit this out of
> post #506
> 
> Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 26 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Ah, you don't like your enormous blunder being exposed, but that's fine.  It's too late to edit it, but I can repost it sans the effect . . . and expose your enormous blunder again!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Information that is translocated, inverted or duplicated results in new information.
> The info at the end is different than the info you started with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dummy, you just gave an illustrative definition and an example of arguably new information.  I thought you said something about the burden being on me.   Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is _yes, _new information can arise.  But you stupidly think that's a contradiction regarding my stance per the information in genomes.
> 
> Alas, ye of little knowledge.
> 
> But, hey, good job overall!
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.
Click to expand...


* Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.  *

Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.

*P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.*

There is no post #606.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did it have proof of your claim.... *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*



As far as I know, you haven't satisfactorily resolved an enormous blunder in your mind yet. . . .



Ringtone said:


> There is a dramatic difference between the following two statements:
> 
> *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*​​*Mutations can never add new information.*​
> The first statement is true, the second statement is arguably false. You attributed the arguably false statement, which I never made, to me out of rank ignorance.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wow, that seems like a major difference . . . not really.



Translation of what *Toddsterpatriot* is actually claiming, albeit, unwittingly, because he's an arrogant know-nothing of rank fideism:

In spite of the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information, there's no major difference between the following two statements:​​*Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.*​​*Mutations can never add new information.*​

First: say _derp derp,_ and tell your significant other to slap you.

Second: drop and give me 50!

Third: Link?

Thanks.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we'll have the evidence and know more about it this coming decade.
> 
> 
> 
> haha... so things we don't know yet are the reason for your beliefs.
> 
> A moment of accidental honesty and clarity from a magical thinker.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that.  We don't have the smoking gun.  It's not like we can test a food and find out what amount or from what source.  If someone has tumors or cancer, then we can't trace it to them eating too much GMO foods.

Yet, we know quite a bit so far.  GMO foods are based on gene mutations.  We know what foods they are found in and what ingredients they may be in.  We know how to avoid eating too much GMO foods.

For example, I can tell that I didn't eat corn-fed beef yesterday by how it looked; It was grass-fed.












The taste was definitely beefy and sous vide cooking makes it a nice pinkish color inside and oh so tender.  Now, cattle can be fed grains after they have been grass fed.  I don't think I had that grain finish either.  Generally speaking, you're going to get bigger and larger parts with corn-fed meats.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I didn't say that. We don't have the smoking gun.


You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In fact, you don't even have a hypothesis for how GMOs could cause tumors. You not only have no smoking gun, you have no body, no suspect, and no crime scene. You once saw a blog you never actually full read or understood, and, as faithy types are inclined to do, you forever adopted a belief that matched the first feeling that fizzled into your colon upon seeing the blog headline.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.  *
> 
> Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.
> 
> *P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.*
> 
> There is no post #606.



And you're a lying ass dog.  You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of *James Bond*, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught.  The new information you're talking about, dummy, is newly expressed latent information, not genomic information.  Recall?  That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.

           

As for the other, that's because it's now in post #523 as you well know and why it's there.  Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!



If you like, have the administrator remove #506.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.  *
> 
> Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.
> 
> *P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.*
> 
> There is no post #606.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a lying ass dog.  You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of *James Bond*, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught.  The new information you're talking about, dummy, is latently expressed information, not genomic information.  Recall?  That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the other, that's because it's now in post #524 as you well know and why it's there.  Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!
Click to expand...


"Latently expressed information''

This is why YEC'ist graduates from the Disco'tute are sans a career in the STEM fields.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.  *
> 
> Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.
> 
> *P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.*
> 
> There is no post #606.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a lying ass dog.  You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of *James Bond*, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught.  The new information you're talking about, dummy, is latently expressed information, not genomic information.  Recall?  That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the other, that's because it's now in post #524 as you well know and why it's there.  Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Latently expressed information''
> 
> This is why YEC'ist graduates from the Disco'tute are sans a career in the STEM fields.
Click to expand...



Shut up, Hollie, that was merely a brain fart.  There's nothing rocket sciency about the term _latent_.  LOL!  Thanks for pointing that out to me.  I didn't proof read. The term is used correctly by me in all other instances in the above.  

By the way, how are you coming along on that explication of the processes of abiogenesis?  It's a real hoot, ain't it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.  *
> 
> Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.
> 
> *P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.*
> 
> There is no post #606.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a lying ass dog.  You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of *James Bond*, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught.  The new information you're talking about, dummy, is latently expressed information, not genomic information.  Recall?  That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the other, that's because it's now in post #524 as you well know and why it's there.  Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Latently expressed information''
> 
> This is why YEC'ist graduates from the Disco'tute are sans a career in the STEM fields.
Click to expand...


Did you ever see him post proof of his claim, " *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?*


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.  *
> 
> Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.
> 
> *P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.*
> 
> There is no post #606.



Again, the error, of course, is yours. See your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Moving on. . . .

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome _or_ did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link.  I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.  Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention like *James* does all the time, did you forget to own up to it like a man as you peed your panties _or_ did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

Thanks.

Winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.  *
> 
> Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.
> 
> *P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.*
> 
> There is no post #606.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a lying ass dog.  You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of *James Bond*, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught.  The new information you're talking about, dummy, is latently expressed information, not genomic information.  Recall?  That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the other, that's because it's now in post #524 as you well know and why it's there.  Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Latently expressed information''
> 
> This is why YEC'ist graduates from the Disco'tute are sans a career in the STEM fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, Hollie, that was merely a brain fart.  There's nothing rocket sciency about the term _latent_.  LOL!  Thanks for pointing that out to me.  I didn't proof read. The term is used correctly by me in all other instances in the above.
> 
> By the way, how are you coming along on that explication of the processes of abiogenesis?  It's a real hoot, ain't it?
Click to expand...

You seem to have these ''brain farts'' in so many of your saliva-slinging tirades.

From ''Latently expressed information'' to  ''scrambled DNA'' to "decompressed genomes'', it's just a cavalcade of nonsense that I can only attribute to sheer ignorance you rattle off until your specious nonsense is called out for what it is. 

The process of abiogenesis? There are several theories and plausible theories are available for experimentation. The exact path to life in the planet is still subject to confirmation but obviously, we know it happened. Can you guess how we know?

On the other hand, we're still waiting for your 
''_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_''

I think your plausible theory of a 6,000. year old planet, talking snakes, Arks cruising the waters, men living to be 900 years etc. sound fascinating. 

I'm sure you will be offering your General Theory soon, right? It should be a total hoot.

Oh, BTW, can you offer some guidance on your gods providing for familial and incestuous relations when the Ark crew disembarked from their cruise?

Thanks. 

That should be a hoot.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the theory on large and small populations.  That MAY address stasis but I don't believe that addresses the lack of transitional fossils.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What transition fossil do we expect to find? ... and where should we find them? ... if the rock strata is discontinuous, and quite a few are, the fossil record within will be discontinuous ... locally here where I live, there are no fossils of any kind ... all Mid-Holocene deposits laid down at 700 ºC ... living matter cooked on impact ...
> 
> In the places and lineages that lack that lack transitions pieces, is the rock strata continuous ... _i.e._ an example please ...
Click to expand...

The ones that prove speciation is gradual because of natural selection?  But if you recall, I'm not expecting to find any cause I don't believe it is.


----------



## Hollie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.  *
> 
> Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.
> 
> *P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.*
> 
> There is no post #606.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a lying ass dog.  You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of *James Bond*, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught.  The new information you're talking about, dummy, is latently expressed information, not genomic information.  Recall?  That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the other, that's because it's now in post #524 as you well know and why it's there.  Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Latently expressed information''
> 
> This is why YEC'ist graduates from the Disco'tute are sans a career in the STEM fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever see him post proof of his claim, " *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?*
Click to expand...


Yeah. That was comedy gold. 

Although, he identified earlier that he has problems with what he calls ''brain farts''. The translation resolves to his willful ignorance of the subject matter. He reads the nonsense that oozes from AIG and when those errors and falsehoods are identified, he puts on his Disco'tute dancing shoes and does a Michael Jackson quality moonwalk to deflect from his obvious falsehoods. 

"decompressed genomes'' is among my favorite Ringtone'isms.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> "decompressed genomes'' is among my favorite Ringtone'isms.



Link, you lying whore?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Mind Games Smything Word Puzzles "

* Fishing For Professed Tenets **


Ringtone said:


> Correct!  Insofar as you're talking about an _actual infinite_.  God is not an actual infinite. You want to take that issue up with *James Bond.*  He insists that God is an actual infinite, not I.


Would omniscience , omnipresence , omnipotence be superlatives you profess to be characteristics of gawd and how are those terms different with the term infinite ?

The theory of monism presumes an identity set of identity elements known as monads , and the infinite identity set includes an infinite count of infinitesimals , and each infinitesimal monad has infinitude inferred from an irrational number .

Is it conceivable that an  identity set with an infinite count of infinitesimal monads with infintude could also be omniscient , omnipresent , omnipotent and infinite ?


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did you ever see him post proof of his claim, " *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?*



So you still don’t understand the ramifications  of the following relative to the fact that mutations have never been observed to add new information to the genome?:

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. *That's the theory*. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.​​Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?​​*Again, that's the theory.*​ 
So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome _or_ did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.  

Thanks.

Winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> o you still don’t understand the ramifications of the following relative to the fact that mutations have never been observed to add new information to the genome?:




Link?


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did you ever see him post proof of his claim, " *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?*



So you don’t know how to Google either?  Dear God, man!   What do you know?  As far as I can tell, you don't seem to know a damn thing about the topic.  What the hell are you doing on this thread?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Link?



Link, again, no friggin' clue.         

I can't prove a negative in this instance, you idiot, and it's not my contention.  The burden of proof is on the evodelutionist per his hypothesis.  What part of _mutations have never been observed to add information to the genome_ don't you understand?  That's one of the hypothetical aspects of evodelusion.

It's as if some true believers were lobotomized zombies or something. 

Moving on. . . .

So did you ever answer the question regarding the point mutations on the duplicate genes of the DDC model of gene duplication? Do they constitute new information or produce new functions in your opinion _or_ are you too lazy to inform yourself? In other words, are you a braying jackass who asks stupid questions and asserts stupid things due to your rank ignorance _or_ are you going to contribute something real to this thread?

Thanks.

Winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "decompressed genomes'' is among my favorite Ringtone'isms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link, you lying whore?
Click to expand...

There are four occurrences in this nonsense thread. See if you can find them.

Do you kiss William Lane Craig with that mouth?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link, again, no friggin' clue.
> 
> I can't prove a negative in this instance, you idiot, and it's not my contention.  The burden of proof is on the evodelutionist per his hypothesis.  What part of _mutations have never been observed to add information to the genome_ don't you understand?  That's the hypothetical aspects of evodelusion.
> 
> It's as if some true believers were lobotomized zombies or something.
> 
> Moving on. . . .
> 
> So did you ever answer the question regarding the point mutations on the duplicate genes of the DDC model of gene duplication? Do they constitute new information or produce new functions in your opinion _or_ are you too lazy to inform yourself? In other words, are you a braying jackass who asks stupid questions and asserts stupid things due to your rank ignorance _or_ are you going to contribute something real to this thread?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Winning!
> 
> P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.
Click to expand...


"_mutations have never been observed to add information to the genome_,''

False, you silly crank. I addressed your false, ignorant claim earlier.

Have you considered that the Disco’tute has played a cruel joke on you?


----------



## Hollie

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Something about corn vs. grass fed cattle somehow became relevant.

The hyper-religious are total hoots.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> The ones that prove speciation is gradual because of natural selection?  But if you recall, I'm not expecting to find any cause I don't believe it is.



... whales ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ones that prove speciation is gradual because of natural selection?  But if you recall, I'm not expecting to find any cause I don't believe it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... whales ...
Click to expand...

Just ask him what "gradual" means. That is, if you want to talk about a new subject entirely, like your credentials, or claims from an article from a sci magazine written in 1987. 

I kid. Kinda.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> You seem to have these ''brain farts'' in so many of your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> From ''Latently expressed information'' to  ''scrambled DNA'' to "decompressed genomes'', it's just a cavalcade of nonsense that I can only attribute to sheer ignorance you rattle off until your specious nonsense is called out for what it is.
> 
> The process of abiogenesis? There are several theories and plausible theories are available for experimentation. The exact path to life in the planet is still subject to confirmation but obviously, we know it happened. Can you guess how we know?
> 
> On the other hand, we're still waiting for your
> ''_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_''
> 
> I think your plausible theory of a 6,000. year old planet, talking snakes, Arks cruising the waters, men living to be 900 years etc. sound fascinating.
> 
> I'm sure you will be offering your General Theory soon, right? It should be a total hoot.
> 
> Oh, BTW, can you offer some guidance on your gods providing for familial and incestuous relations when the Ark crew disembarked from their cruise?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> That should be a hoot.



Hey, dummy,  the term _scrambled_ is obviously not a technical term.  It's being used by me as a means of describing something we understand very little about right now regarding the pattern of crossover events in homologous recombination, because at least certain kinds of alternative traits seem to be built-in_ *to* _randomly express themselves, often as new, previously unexpressed traits.

Some information is stored in the genome in compressed form.  What the _beep_ is wrong with you?
All that means is that it has yet to express itself.  It's also seemingly built-in _*to*_ randomly arise. Genetic decompressed information is merely that which is deciphered and expressed.  By what mechanism exactly?  We.  Don't.  Know.

Finally, I already told you KARAN, that my previous expression regarding latent information was not intended.

Hey, you said thanks in the above. 

You're welcome.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Hand No Idea Amorphous Alternatives Could Assimilate Or Subsume As Well "

* Try Not To Get Anxious About The Future Of Genetic Engineering **


Ringtone said:


> So you still don’t understand the ramifications  of the following relative to the fact that mutations have never been observed to add new information to the genome?











						Artificial gene synthesis - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_While traditional nucleic acid synthesis only uses 4 base pairs - adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine, oligonucleotide *synthesis in the future could incorporate the use of unnatural base pairs, which are artificially designed and synthesized nucleobases that do not occur in nature.*_
_*This is the first known example of a living organism passing along an expanded genetic code to subsequent generations.*_
_*The successful incorporation of a third base pair is a significant breakthrough toward the goal of greatly expanding the number of amino acids which can be encoded by DNA, *from the existing 20 amino acids to a theoretically possible 172, thereby expanding the potential for living organisms to produce novel proteins.[20] In the future, these unnatural base pairs could be synthesised and incorporated into oligonucleotides via DNA printing methods. _





__





						Protein engineering - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						DNA synthesis - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> "_mutations have never been observed to add information to the genome_,''
> 
> False, you silly crank. I addressed your false, ignorant claim earlier.
> 
> Have you considered that the Disco’tute has played a cruel joke on you?



Link?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ones that prove speciation is gradual because of natural selection?  But if you recall, I'm not expecting to find any cause I don't believe it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... whales ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just ask him what "gradual" means. That is, if you want to talk about a new subject entirely, like your credentials, or claims from an article from a sci magazine written in 1987.
> 
> I kid. Kinda.
Click to expand...

I doubt it's kinda.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ones that prove speciation is gradual because of natural selection?  But if you recall, I'm not expecting to find any cause I don't believe it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... whales ...
Click to expand...

Is that anything like the logic that led to your conclusion that republicans don't believe there is a pandemic?

You know?  Defining rules by exception?


----------



## Ringtone

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Hand No Idea Amorphous Alternatives Could Assimilate Or Subsume As Well "
> 
> * Try Not To Get Anxious About The Future Of Genetic Engineering **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still don’t understand the ramifications  of the following relative to the fact that mutations have never been observed to add new information to the genome?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artificial gene synthesis - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _While traditional nucleic acid synthesis only uses 4 base pairs - adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine, oligonucleotide *synthesis in the future could incorporate the use of unnatural base pairs, which are artificially designed and synthesized nucleobases that do not occur in nature.*_
> _*This is the first known example of a living organism passing along an expanded genetic code to subsequent generations.*_
> _*The successful incorporation of a third base pair is a significant breakthrough toward the goal of greatly expanding the number of amino acids which can be encoded by DNA, *from the existing 20 amino acids to a theoretically possible 172, thereby expanding the potential for living organisms to produce novel proteins.[20] In the future, these unnatural base pairs could be synthesised and incorporated into oligonucleotides via DNA printing methods. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protein engineering - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA synthesis - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


_*The successful incorporation of a third base pair is a significant breakthrough toward the goal of greatly expanding the number of amino acids which can be encoded by DNA, *from the existing 20 amino acids to a theoretically possible 172, thereby expanding the potential for living organisms to produce novel proteins.[20] In the future, these unnatural base pairs could be synthesised and incorporated into oligonucleotides via DNA printing methods. 

_

Yep!  Artificial gene synthesis:  it's amazing what we're doing in this field, and it's developments will be an important aspect to designing an actual lifeform.  I see no reason why it can't be done.  It's difficult to project when, as I'm sure you know that advancements can drag along in the face of especially complex puzzles until some key breakthrough comes along, and, then, suddenly . . ._ zoom_!  

Fair enough.  All good info.  Welcome.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have these ''brain farts'' in so many of your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> From ''Latently expressed information'' to  ''scrambled DNA'' to "decompressed genomes'', it's just a cavalcade of nonsense that I can only attribute to sheer ignorance you rattle off until your specious nonsense is called out for what it is.
> 
> The process of abiogenesis? There are several theories and plausible theories are available for experimentation. The exact path to life in the planet is still subject to confirmation but obviously, we know it happened. Can you guess how we know?
> 
> On the other hand, we're still waiting for your
> ''_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_''
> 
> I think your plausible theory of a 6,000. year old planet, talking snakes, Arks cruising the waters, men living to be 900 years etc. sound fascinating.
> 
> I'm sure you will be offering your General Theory soon, right? It should be a total hoot.
> 
> Oh, BTW, can you offer some guidance on your gods providing for familial and incestuous relations when the Ark crew disembarked from their cruise?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> That should be a hoot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dummy,  the term _scrambled_ is obviously not a technical term.  It's being used by me as a means of describing something we understand very little about right now regarding the pattern of crossover events in homologous recombination, because at least certain kinds of alternative traits seem to be built-in_ *to* _randomly express themselves, often as new, previously unexpressed traits.
> 
> Some information is stored in the genome in compressed form.  What the _beep_ is wrong with you?
> All that means is that it has yet to express itself.  It's also seemingly built-in _*to*_ randomly arise. Genetic decompressed information is merely that which is deciphered and expressed.  By what mechanism exactly?  We.  Don't.  Know.
> 
> Finally, I already told you KARAN, that my previous expression regarding latent information was not intended.
> 
> Hey, you said thanks in the above.
> 
> You're welcome.
Click to expand...


C’mon now, fundie boy. The term _scrambled_ is obviously a “technical” term you folks at AIG use. And yes, you do tend to make excuses for your lack of a science vocabulary as you stumble and mumble your way through terms and definitions you don’t understand.

Consider leaving the science focused discussions to those who are trained in the sciences.

When there’s a discussion geared toward uncomplicated matters, we’ll let you know.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have these ''brain farts'' in so many of your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> From ''Latently expressed information'' to  ''scrambled DNA'' to "decompressed genomes'', it's just a cavalcade of nonsense that I can only attribute to sheer ignorance you rattle off until your specious nonsense is called out for what it is.
> 
> The process of abiogenesis? There are several theories and plausible theories are available for experimentation. The exact path to life in the planet is still subject to confirmation but obviously, we know it happened. Can you guess how we know?
> 
> On the other hand, we're still waiting for your
> ''_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_''
> 
> I think your plausible theory of a 6,000. year old planet, talking snakes, Arks cruising the waters, men living to be 900 years etc. sound fascinating.
> 
> I'm sure you will be offering your General Theory soon, right? It should be a total hoot.
> 
> Oh, BTW, can you offer some guidance on your gods providing for familial and incestuous relations when the Ark crew disembarked from their cruise?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> That should be a hoot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dummy,  the term _scrambled_ is obviously not a technical term.  It's being used by me as a means of describing something we understand very little about right now regarding the pattern of crossover events in homologous recombination, because at least certain kinds of alternative traits seem to be built-in_ *to* _randomly express themselves, often as new, previously unexpressed traits.
> 
> Some information is stored in the genome in compressed form.  What the _beep_ is wrong with you?
> All that means is that it has yet to express itself.  It's also seemingly built-in _*to*_ randomly arise. Genetic decompressed information is merely that which is deciphered and expressed.  By what mechanism exactly?  We.  Don't.  Know.
> 
> Finally, I already told you KARAN, that my previous expression regarding latent information was not intended.
> 
> Hey, you said thanks in the above.
> 
> You're welcome.
Click to expand...

What information is in compressed form? Other than some nonsense you read at the Disco’tute, why would you think anyone not associated with the fundie ministries would take that nonsense seriously?

Why do you make up this nonsense as you plow new furrows through the fields of dull and uninformed?


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> C’mon now, fundie boy. The term _scrambled_ is obviously a “technical” term you folks at AIG use. And yes, you do tend to make excuses for your lack of a science vocabulary as you stumble and mumble your way through terms and definitions you don’t understand.
> 
> Consider leaving the science focused discussions to those who are trained in the sciences.
> 
> When there’s a discussion geared toward uncomplicated matters, we’ll let you know.



You're claiming _scrambled_ is a routinely used technical term now?  Tell me, Karen, is it dope?  The wacky weed?  Shrooms?  LSD?  Crack?  Did you go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall again?


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.  *
> 
> Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.
> 
> *P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.*
> 
> There is no post #606.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a lying ass dog.  You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of *James Bond*, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught.  The new information you're talking about, dummy, is latently expressed information, not genomic information.  Recall?  That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the other, that's because it's now in post #524 as you well know and why it's there.  Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Latently expressed information''
> 
> This is why YEC'ist graduates from the Disco'tute are sans a career in the STEM fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever see him post proof of his claim, " *Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?*
Click to expand...


So,* Toddsterpatriot*, given that genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and given that latent, originally compressed genetic information is expressed in populations, it's almost as if what constitutes "new information" depends on how one defines _new information_. Given that DNA codes for proteins and traits, it's almost as if what constitutes “a new function" depends on how one defines _new functions _relative to varying criteria_._ Given that many of the examples of new information and functions, touted by evolutionists over the years, were later shown to be the stuff of preexisting genetic algorithms and genetic compactions, it's almost as if the falsified designations were predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism. Indeed, given that the matter is further complicated by the fact that what constitutes "new" or "information" or "functions," in and of themselves, respectively, _also_ depends on how one defines them, once again, relative to varying criteria_._ Gee whiz! Evolutionists, creationists and ID theorists not only disagree between themselves over these matters, but also disagree, respectively, among themselves.

Hot damn!

It's almost as if the incalculably complex realities of the genome defy the dogmatic, black-and-white think of your childishly simple-minded ignorance, that because of your ignorance you stupidly alleged contradictions in my explications that exist nowhere else in the world, but  your boorishly arrogant mind of little knowledge!

Still winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... whales ...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that anything like the logic that led to your conclusion that republicans don't believe there is a pandemic?
> You know?  Defining rules by exception?
Click to expand...


Is this a matter of dogma for you? ... in spite the evidence, you cannot believe whales evolved in a slow step-wise manner ... we have the fossils in hand ... just the right behaviors in a great spot to form fossils ... we have a fairly complete sequence of whale adaptation over (I believe) many tens of millions of years ... they're quite abundant in the Sahara ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> What part of _mutations have never been observed to add information to the genome_ don't you understand?



The part where you never proved your claim.
How about a source that says the same thing?
They must be easy to find. So post one.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... whales ...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that anything like the logic that led to your conclusion that republicans don't believe there is a pandemic?
> You know?  Defining rules by exception?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this a matter of dogma for you? ... in spite the evidence, you cannot believe whales evolved in a slow step-wise manner ... we have the fossils in hand ... just the right behaviors in a great spot to form fossils ... we have a fairly complete sequence of whale adaptation over (I believe) many tens of millions of years ... they're quite abundant in the Sahara ...
Click to expand...

No.  It's not.  I have told you what it's about.  I haven't even deviated once.


----------



## Ringtone

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Mind Games Smything Word Puzzles "
> 
> * Fishing For Professed Tenets **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct!  Insofar as you're talking about an _actual infinite_.  God is not an actual infinite. You want to take that issue up with *James Bond.*  He insists that God is an actual infinite, not I.
> 
> 
> 
> Would omniscience , omnipresence , omnipotence be superlatives you profess to be characteristics of gawd and how are those terms different with the term infinite ?
> 
> The theory of monism presumes an identity set of identity elements known as monads , and the infinite identity set includes an infinite count of infinitesimals , and each infinitesimal monad has infinitude inferred from an irrational number .
> 
> Is it conceivable that an  identity set with an infinite count of infinitesimal monads with infintude could also be omniscient , omnipresent , omnipotent and infinite ?
Click to expand...


Yes, they are superlatives.  In classical theism, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's incomparably great and perfect in his being.  He's an indivisible, unembodied mind who knows all things about existence, can do all things possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all of existence.  The _qualitative_ infinity of classical theism and the _quantitative_ infinities of mathematics are categorically distinct things.

God is not an actual infinite!

Now, since you do understand what an actual infinite is, go explain it to *James Bond*.  I've tried.  He's a classical theist, who, if he were to ever grasp the _derp derp_ of his contention, would realize that it's  not only inherently absurd, but contradicts what he ultimately believes.

His problem is that he unwittingly conflates the _qualitative_ infinity of classical theism and the _quantitative_ infinities of mathematics.

But, then, on the other hand, I have shown him every which way there is that his contention is nuts, and his responses are clearly that of a liar who is too proud to admit his error.  It's either that or a matter of  being frozen in a state of cognitive dissonance in the face of the falsification of a long-held belief.  In that case, he's refusing to think about it.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The part where you never proved your claim.
> How about a source that says the same thing?
> They must be easy to find. So post one.


You're either incredibly stupid, a liar or both.

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, and you obviously don't know why. In fact, you don't seem to know much of . . . well, anything about evolution. You still don't grasp the importance of the distinction between genomic information and gene (trait) information relative to the speciational potentialities of their categorical order _or_, apparently, the speciational significance of the distinction between DNA that codes for proteins and DNA that codes for traits. You don't know anything about the models of gene duplication, and you don't seem to know anything about genetic algorithms, compressed genomes, homologous recombination, crossover events, adaptive immunity . . . the complexities of determining what constitutes new information and functions when our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy!

Worse, you can't seem to grasp the ramifications of anything you read.

So you believe evolution is true when in fact you don't know dick about it and, therefore, why you believe it.

Do you make it a habit of believing things you don't understand _or,_ for that matter, like *James,* denying things you don't understand?

Winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you never proved your claim.
> How about a source that says the same thing?
> They must be easy to find. So post one.
> 
> 
> 
> You're either incredibly stupid, a liar or both.
> 
> As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, and you obviously don't know why. In fact, you don't seem to know much of . . . well, anything about evolution. You still don't grasp the importance of the distinction between genomic information and gene (trait) information relative to the speciational potentialities of their categorical order _or_, apparently, the speciational significance of the distinction between DNA that codes for proteins and DNA that codes for traits. You don't know anything about the models of gene duplication, and you don't seem to know anything about genetic algorithms, compressed genomes, homologous recombination, crossover events, adaptive immunity . . . the complexities of determining what constitutes new information and functions when our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy!
> 
> Worse, you can't seem to grasp the ramifications of anything you read.
> 
> So you believe evolution is true when in fact you don't know dick about it and, therefore, why you believe it.
> 
> Do you make it a habit of believing things you don't understand _or,_ for that matter, like *James,* denying things you don't understand?
> 
> Winning!
> 
> P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


Don't be sad that you can't prove your claim.

I've come to terms with your failure.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> C’mon now, fundie boy. The term _scrambled_ is obviously a “technical” term you folks at AIG use. And yes, you do tend to make excuses for your lack of a science vocabulary as you stumble and mumble your way through terms and definitions you don’t understand.
> 
> Consider leaving the science focused discussions to those who are trained in the sciences.
> 
> When there’s a discussion geared toward uncomplicated matters, we’ll let you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're claiming _scrambled_ is a routinely used technical term now?  Tell me, Karen, is it dope?  The wacky weed?  Shrooms?  LSD?  Crack?  Did you go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall again?
Click to expand...

I’m not surprised that _scrambled_ is a routinely used technical term used at your Disco’tute meetings.

Understand, Karen, that your gaffes and blunders are a result of your own failings and ineptitudes.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Mind Games Smything Word Puzzles "
> 
> * Fishing For Professed Tenets **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct!  Insofar as you're talking about an _actual infinite_.  God is not an actual infinite. You want to take that issue up with *James Bond.*  He insists that God is an actual infinite, not I.
> 
> 
> 
> Would omniscience , omnipresence , omnipotence be superlatives you profess to be characteristics of gawd and how are those terms different with the term infinite ?
> 
> The theory of monism presumes an identity set of identity elements known as monads , and the infinite identity set includes an infinite count of infinitesimals , and each infinitesimal monad has infinitude inferred from an irrational number .
> 
> Is it conceivable that an  identity set with an infinite count of infinitesimal monads with infintude could also be omniscient , omnipresent , omnipotent and infinite ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are superlatives.  In classical theism, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's incomparably great and perfect in his being.  He's an indivisible, unembodied mind who knows all things about existence, can do all things possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all of existence.  The _qualitative_ infinity of classical theism and the _quantitative_ infinities of mathematics are categorically distinct things.
> 
> God is not an actual infinite!
> 
> Now, since you do understand what an actual infinite is, go explain it to *James Bond*.  I've tried.  He's a classical theist, who, if he were to ever grasp the _derp derp_ of his contention, would realize that it's  not only inherently absurd, but contradicts what he ultimately believes.
> 
> His problem is that he unwittingly conflates the _qualitative_ infinity of classical theism and the _quantitative_ infinities of mathematics.
> 
> But, then, on the other hand, I have shown him every which way there his that is contention is nuts, and his responses are clearly that of a liar who is too proud to admit his error.  It's either that or a matter of  being frozen in a state of cognitive dissonance in the face of the falsification of a long-held belief.  He's refusing to think about it.
Click to expand...


“_God is not an actual infinite_!”

Of course, dear.

Gee whiz, Karen. Isn’t this the place where you should add some technical terms such as _scrambled _to define the attributes of your gods?


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Don't be sad that you can't prove your claim.
> 
> I've come to terms with your failure.



Hot, spanking damn!   

It's almost as if *Toddsterpatriot *is an intellectually dishonest little prick of a man who never intended to discuss the matter in good faith, as he limp-wristedly nanced around questions and answers. It's almost as if *Ringtone* decided to go ahead and post a summary on the matter anyway, knowing that *Toddsterpatriot* would probably hang himself. It's almost as if *Ringtone* then systematically exposed *Toddsterpatriot *for the slogan-spouting, know-nothing ignoramus that he is.

It was inevitable that an arrogant ignoramus would implicitly or emphatically make claims, albeit, unwittingly, that he could not prove.

Still winning!

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.


----------



## Ringtone

Hot spanking damn!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be sad that you can't prove your claim.
> 
> I've come to terms with your failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot, spanking damn! It's almost as if *Toddsterpatriot *is an intellectually dishonest little prick of a man who never intended to discuss the matter in good faith, as he limp-wristedly nanced around questions and answers. It's almost as if *Ringtone* decided to go ahead and post a summary on the matter anyway, knowing that *Toddsterpatriot* would probably hang himself. It's almost as if *Ringtone* then systematically exposed *Toddsterpatriot *for the slogan-spouting, know-nothing ignoramus that he is.
> 
> It was inevitable that an arrogant ignoramus would implicitly or emphatically make claims, albeit, unwittingly, that he could not prove.
> 
> Still winning!
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.
Click to expand...

I’ve noticed that the science loathing Ringtone often refers to Ringtone in the third person.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> No.  It's not.  I have told you what it's about.  I haven't even deviated once.



And you won't deviate from your beliefs in spite the evidence to the contrary ... how is this not dogma? ...


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> I’ve noticed that the science loathing Ringtone often refers to Ringtone in the third person.



Are you saying that I'm arrogant, Karen?  Ooh!  Right in the heart.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> It was inevitable that an arrogant ignoramus would implicitly or emphatically make claims, albeit, unwittingly, that he could not prove.



But enough about you.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was inevitable that an arrogant ignoramus would implicitly or emphatically make claims, albeit, unwittingly, that he could not prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But enough about you.
Click to expand...


That's actually pretty funny, shape shifter, too bad it's not true.

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome _or_ did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.

Thanks.

Winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Ringtone said:


> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.


Suggestion:  Move this post to the "Religion and Ethics" board.  Religion isn't remotely related to "Science and Technology."


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve noticed that the science loathing Ringtone often refers to Ringtone in the third person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that I'm arrogant, Karen?  Ooh!  Right in the heart.
Click to expand...


Just a buffoon, Karen.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's not.  I have told you what it's about.  I haven't even deviated once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you won't deviate from your beliefs in spite the evidence to the contrary ... how is this not dogma? ...
Click to expand...

If anyone is displaying signs of dogma here it is you.  Am I trying to change your beliefs or are you dogmatically pursuing me in an attempt to make me believe as you do?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was inevitable that an arrogant ignoramus would implicitly or emphatically make claims, albeit, unwittingly, that he could not prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But enough about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's actually pretty funny, shape shifter, too bad it's not true.
> 
> So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome _or_ did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Winning!
> 
> P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.
Click to expand...

It’s comically tragic when religious zealots attempt to engage in science matters when their only exposure to science is from the Disco’tute. The zealots comment that mutations have never been observed to adding new information to the genome is a reflection of his ignorance and indoctrination at fundie creation ministries.

Mutations adding “information” is precisely the natural process that adds variation to populations. The claim by the scientifically ignorant to the contrary is _remarkably_ ignorant. The result of mutations _not_ creating new variation means there would be little or no variation for natural selection to operate on. In particular, we can relate this to the YEC’ists attachment to the Noah fable. Reducing populations to a single pair of individuals as the Noah fable is written would have removed virtually all variation from the planet’s wildlife population and those populations would crash. 

Another example is shown with experiments with bacteria. Variations, which include beneficial mutations, are produced in populations that are grown from a single specimen. As the population started with just one chromosome, there was obviously no variation in the original population, thus the subsequent variation came from mutations.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> If anyone is displaying signs of dogma here it is you.  Am I trying to change your beliefs or are you dogmatically pursuing me in an attempt to make me believe as you do?



Science isn't about belief ... it's about observation ... and that's your flaw here in this discussion, this scientific theory you're advancing is something we _cannot_ observe, by definition ... "divine intervention" is outside what science can address ...


----------



## Ringtone

LuckyDuck said:


> Suggestion:  Move this post to the "Religion and Ethics" board.  Religion isn't remotely related to "Science and Technology."



Suggestion:  Have a moderator move your post in the above to the "Religion and Ethics" forum,  given that your _religion of naturalism_ isn't remotely falsifiable.   Thanks.

Zoom!  Right over your head.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is displaying signs of dogma here it is you.  Am I trying to change your beliefs or are you dogmatically pursuing me in an attempt to make me believe as you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science isn't about belief ... it's about observation ... and that's your flaw here in this discussion, this scientific theory you're advancing is something we _cannot_ observe, by definition ... "divine intervention" is outside what science can address ...
Click to expand...

I have not gotten within a hundred miles of divine intervention.


----------



## Ringtone

ding said:


> I have not gotten within a hundred miles of divine intervention.



I didn't think you had.  I've been following the discourse between you guys.  Thinking I had missed something, her last post had me searching through the chain.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suggestion:  Move this post to the "Religion and Ethics" board.  Religion isn't remotely related to "Science and Technology."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suggestion:  Have a moderator move your post in the above to the "Religion and Ethics" forum,  given that your _religion of naturalism_ isn't remotely falsifiable.   Thanks.
> 
> Zoom!  Right over your head.
Click to expand...

Actually, moving this thread to the religion forum makes sense. As with so many threads opened by religious extremists / YEC’ers, this thread devolves to the YEC’ers frantically attempting to find any inconsistency in the naturally occurring / scientific explanation of things so they spackle their various gods into their imagined gaps.

Biological evolution actually is falsifiable. “The Gawds Did It” is not.

Zoom. Another smack in the fundie’s forehead.


----------



## ding

Ringtone said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not gotten within a hundred miles of divine intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think you had.  I've been following the discourse between you guys.  Thinking I had missed something, her last post had me searching through the chain.
Click to expand...

Her?  Not sure about that. 

Actually what I believe both RD and FF missed was the context I presented was centered around speciation as in the origin of a new species.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> “_God is not an actual infinite_!”
> 
> Of course, dear.



Oh, my bad, Karen.  You're right, of course.  God by definition is a quantitatively divisible being of physical substance.  Whatever was I thinking?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “_God is not an actual infinite_!”
> 
> Of course, dear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my bad, Karen.  You're right, of course.  God by definition is a quantitatively divisible being of physical substance.  Whatever was I thinking?
Click to expand...


Yes, your bad, Karen. Your various gods are by definition, asserted supernatural agents who cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that have attributes you need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who live in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and are uncreated themselves and use methods and means you can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain you claim they exist.

Super! 

The hyper-religious are profoundly superstitious people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call your preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.

I agree. Whatever are you thinking? I’m thinking it is whatever you are directed to think by the YEC’ist madrassah you worship at.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. We don't have the smoking gun.
> 
> 
> 
> You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In fact, you don't even have a hypothesis for how GMOs could cause tumors. You not only have no smoking gun, you have no body, no suspect, and no crime scene. You once saw a blog you never actually full read or understood, and, as faithy types are inclined to do, you forever adopted a belief that matched the first feeling that fizzled into your colon upon seeing the blog headline.
Click to expand...


Whoa.  Why are you becoming so defensive?  You even admitted we do not know what is in our foods if we do not know the ingredients.  There are no labels for GMO or _bioengineering of genetics and biotechnology used to cut up and join together genetic material and especially DNA from one or more species of organism and to introduce the result into an organism in order to change one or more of its characteristics_.  Although, the non-GMO side try to avoid non-GMO foods, it is near impossible to avoid.  Who hasn't gone to a fast foods place?  Who hasn't gone to Starbucks and used regular or stevia (not organic) sweetener?  Who hasn't eaten corn on a cob?

Even Costco has both GMO and non-GMO foods.  Those who want non-GMO (organic and wild caught) end up paying more, but it is what it is.

Yet, the non-GMO people think that it is better and tastes better.  I should start going to Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market almost all the time for my food since you're reacting this way.

After all, I said, "Practice what you preach "  This could be a _revelation_ for me.

Obviously, it's status quo for you.  Enjoy your Popeye's fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and cole slaw today.


----------



## Hollie

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that *“*_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.



Oh, come now.  Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity.  With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities.  All of it, you missed haha .  Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time.  Why is that?

Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing?  It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.



Hollie said:


> Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that *“*_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_



It's the general _history_ of supernatural creation.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Science isn't about belief ... it's about observation ...



Not with what's happened since evolution in the 1850s.  Our side OBSERVED with the success of the swan neck experiment and the failure of the Miller-Urey experiment.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Would Versus Could Competing With Must Be But Not Necessarily "

* Infinite Identity Sets Are Complete And Closed **


Ringtone said:


> Yes, they are superlatives.  In classical theism, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's incomparably great and perfect in his being.  He's an indivisible, unembodied mind who knows all things about existence, can do all things possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all of existence.  The _qualitative_ infinity of classical theism and the _quantitative_ infinities of mathematics are categorically distinct things.
> God is not an actual infinite!


The qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics are inextricably linked .

The premises of science in naturalism are that nature is based upon order that is a'priori and intuitive by deduction .

An identity set with an infinite quantity of infinitesimal identity element monads with the quality of infinitude allows one to infer from an irrational number that an endless value implies perpetual and eternal .

The notion of monotheism is inextricably linked with mathematical monism .


----------



## james bond

I'm making a Costco trip today and coming back I sometimes stopped to get Senorita bread  and Jollibee chicken .  Gosh, I'm tempted haha .

View attachment 462686

It's impossible to be a purist on this -- Non GMO foods: How to Avoid GMOs (for real).  I think all one can is try to eat non-GMO and not worry about it for the occasional GMO foods.


----------



## james bond

Monk-Eye said:


> The notion of monotheism is inextricably linked with mathematical monism .



Give an example of mathematical monism.

Here are the ones I'm familiar with...

"

Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:


_Genus monism_: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
_Substance monism_: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
_Property monism_: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
_Existence monism_: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
_Priority monism_: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)
"





__





						Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
					





					plato.stanford.edu


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> I have not gotten within a hundred miles of divine intervention.



You haven't come within a thousand miles of making any kind of theoretical statement ... all you've stated is "this is wrong and I can't explain why I feel that way" ... 

In science, it's not enough to dispute the consensus opinion ... we're obligated to present our alternative ... I've an occasion to denounce the Big Bang Theory, the universe is stationary, I have to have a reason for this, or I'm just being an idiot ... (the speed-of-light is slowing down over time, which only gives us the impression of an expanding universe ... and this can be shown by looking at electron orbital distances in Z > 5 iron atoms) ...


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> Her?  Not sure about that.



I gender identify as an uneducated construction laborer ... the proper pronoun is "fuckhead" ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now.  Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity.  With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities.  All of it, you missed haha .  Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time.  Why is that?
> 
> Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing?  It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that *“*_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the general _history_ of supernatural creation.
Click to expand...

The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.

I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.

The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not gotten within a hundred miles of divine intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't come within a thousand miles of making any kind of theoretical statement ... all you've stated is "this is wrong and I can't explain why I feel that way" ...
> 
> In science, it's not enough to dispute the consensus opinion ... we're obligated to present our alternative ... I've an occasion to denounce the Big Bang Theory, the universe is stationary, I have to have a reason for this, or I'm just being an idiot ... (the speed-of-light is slowing down over time, which only gives us the impression of an expanding universe ... and this can be shown by looking at electron orbital distances in Z > 5 iron atoms) ...
Click to expand...

That's bullshit and you know it.  If you can't tell  me why I question it, after hearing why a half a dozen times or so, I'm wasting my time. 

Please don't blow smoke up my skirt about what science should and shouldn't do because you are starting to sound like a AGW nut shouting down all opposing thought that challenges its dogma.  

Lastly... It's not my theory.  My beliefs were informed by experts in the field questioning the status quo because it did not explain the data they were seeing.  AND they did present an alternative; genetic mutations.  

I'm done.  This is bullshit.  Fuckin' vainglory.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Monads With Infinitude Are Not In Anthology Because Greeks Sought But Did Not Find "

* Substantive Monism Surmises The Rest **


james bond said:


> Give an example of mathematical monism.
> Here are the ones I'm familiar with...
> "
> Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:
> 
> _Genus monism_: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
> _Substance monism_: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
> _Property monism_: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
> _Existence monism_: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
> _Priority monism_: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plato.stanford.edu







__





						Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
					





					plato.stanford.edu
				












						Monadology - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her?  Not sure about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gender identify as an uneducated construction laborer ... the proper pronoun is "fuckhead" ...
Click to expand...

Don't care anymore.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her?  Not sure about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gender identify as an uneducated construction laborer ... the proper pronoun is "fuckhead" ...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now.  Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity.  With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities.  All of it, you missed haha .  Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time.  Why is that?
> 
> Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing?  It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that *“*_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the general _history_ of supernatural creation.
Click to expand...

Shirley, you have noticed that ID’iot creation’istas open threads in the science forum and then spam the thread with “philosophical” arguments that are best suited in other threads.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> Give an example of mathematical monism.
> 
> Here are the ones I'm familiar with...
> 
> "
> 
> Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:
> 
> 
> _Genus monism_: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
> _Substance monism_: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
> _Property monism_: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
> _Existence monism_: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
> _Priority monism_: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plato.stanford.edu



Hey,* James*, I'm still waiting on you to explain how the mathematical concept of an actual infinite_—_that of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something_—_(1) exists outside of minds, (2) existed in the minds of Aristotle, C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper, contrary to your contention, but not in yours, and (3) exists in the minds of everyone else (including those of angels and God himself), but not in yours. Thanks.

Winning!


----------



## Ringtone

ding said:


> Actually what I believe both RD and FF missed was the context I presented was centered around speciation as in the origin of a new species.



Not a her? Okey Dokey. I was operating under the impression of the  avatar. 

I followed your perspective all along, but, then, I actually know what the theory variously holds and what is held to be the evidence for it. Most true believers on interactive social media don't. That is to say, they don't know the empirical data or the evolutionary "theory" well enough to distinguish the actually observed processes and mechanisms of speciation from the theory's hypothetically projected expectations of speciation.

Their belief is the stuff of fideism, i.e., uninformed (blind) faith.

I have no dispute with the man who knows what he believes and why, presuming, of course, that he is accurately informed by the observable evidence _and_ consciously aware of the metaphysical bias that informs (1) his interpretation of the evidence _and_ (2) his understanding of the potentialities of the evidence.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I believe both RD and FF missed was the context I presented was centered around speciation as in the origin of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a her? Okey Dokey. I was operating under the impression of the  avatar.
> 
> I followed your perspective all along, but, then, I actually know what the theory variously holds and what is held to be the evidence for it. Most true believers on interactive social media don't. That is to say, they don't know the empirical data or the evolutionary "theory" well enough to distinguish the actually observed processes and mechanisms of speciation from the theory's hypothetically projected expectations of speciation.
> 
> Their belief is the stuff of fideism, i.e., uninformed (blind) faith.
> 
> I have no dispute with the man who knows what he believes and why, presuming, of course, that he is accurately informed by the observable evidence _and_ consciously aware of the metaphysical bias that informs (1) his interpretation of the evidence _and_ (2) his understanding of the potentialities of the evidence.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that the hyper-religious rattle on about “the actually observed processes and mechanisms of speciation from the theory's hypothetically projected expectations of speciation.” when their potentialities of the evidence come from ID’iot creationer websites.

Let’s get you versed on some correct and accurate terms, shall we? There is no need to “quote mine” from ID’iot creationer websites about “hypothetically projected expectations”, we can refer to the peer reviewed data, we can use objective criteria and we can study the biological mechanisms. No so with YEC’ist claims to “The Gawds Did It”. 



			Observed Instances of Speciation
		




			Some More Observed Speciation Events
		



Of course, you YEC’ists could offer more than claims to supernaturalism and “hypothetically projected expectations” with submission of the YEC’ist / ID’iot creationer _“_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”*_. _For some reason, the industry of YEC’ists / ID’iot creationers refuse to do so.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now.  Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity.  With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities.  All of it, you missed haha .  Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time.  Why is that?
> 
> Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing?  It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that *“*_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the general _history_ of supernatural creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.
> 
> I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.
> 
> The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.
Click to expand...


As I thought, your side has nothing.  Not even 1+1=2.  Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now.  Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity.  With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities.  All of it, you missed haha .  Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time.  Why is that?
> 
> Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing?  It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that *“*_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the general _history_ of supernatural creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.
> 
> I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.
> 
> The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I thought, your side has nothing.  Not even 1+1=2.  Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.
Click to expand...

I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.


----------



## Ringtone

Monk-Eye said:


> The premises of science in naturalism are that nature is based upon order that is a'priori and intuitive by deduction.



Agree.



Monk-Eye said:


> An identity set with an infinite quantity of infinitesimal identity element monads with the quality of infinitude allows one to infer from an irrational number that an endless value implies perpetual and eternal.



The mathematical concepts of infinitudes (i.e., actual infinities) and logic certainly point to the existential necessity of the eternal, but from that it does not follow, assuming I understand you correctly, that the eternal existent is an actual infinite.

For the sake of clarity, do you subscribe to philosophical monism?



Monk-Eye said:


> The notion of monotheism is inextricably linked with mathematical monism.



Yes, after a fashion, namely, in the revelational sense regarding the existential necessity of the eternal.


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give an example of mathematical monism.
> 
> Here are the ones I'm familiar with...
> 
> "
> 
> Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:
> 
> 
> _Genus monism_: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
> _Substance monism_: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
> _Property monism_: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
> _Existence monism_: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
> _Priority monism_: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plato.stanford.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey,* James*, I'm still waiting on you to explain how the mathematical concept of an actual infinite_—_that of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something_—_(1) exists outside of minds, (2) existed in the minds of Aristotle, C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper, contrary to your contention, but not in yours, and (3) exists in the minds of everyone else (including those of angels and God himself), but not in yours. Thanks.
> 
> Winning!
Click to expand...


I'm beginning to think you are looney tunes.  Already explained what infinities in the mind are.

Why don't you prove your actual mind infinity?  Count to infinity for us in your head.  

Hint:  Eventually, you'll be dead.

And JB ends up as:


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premises of science in naturalism are that nature is based upon order that is a'priori and intuitive by deduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> An identity set with an infinite quantity of infinitesimal identity element monads with the quality of infinitude allows one to infer from an irrational number that an endless value implies perpetual and eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mathematical concepts of infinitude (i.e., actual infinities) and logic certainly point to the existential necessity of the eternal, but from that it does not follow, assuming I understand you correctly, that the eternal existent is an actual infinite.
> 
> For the sake of clarity, do you subscribe to philosophical monism?
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> The notion of monotheism is inextricably linked with mathematical monism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, after a fashion, namely, in the revelational sense regarding the existential necessity of the eternal.
Click to expand...


There is no “existential necessity of the eternal.”

Tell William Lane Craig he’s wrong.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now.  Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity.  With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities.  All of it, you missed haha .  Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time.  Why is that?
> 
> Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing?  It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that *“*_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the general _history_ of supernatural creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.
> 
> I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.
> 
> The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I thought, your side has nothing.  Not even 1+1=2.  Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.
Click to expand...


Still no math, but deflection.

You got it backwards.  YEC was there before science discovery, math discovery, space, time, and more.  That's why it wasn't in the Biblical timeline.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now.  Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity.  With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities.  All of it, you missed haha .  Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time.  Why is that?
> 
> Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing?  It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that *“*_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the general _history_ of supernatural creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.
> 
> I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.
> 
> The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I thought, your side has nothing.  Not even 1+1=2.  Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no math, but deflection.
> 
> You got it backwards.  YEC was there before science discovery, math discovery, space, time, and more.  That's why it wasn't in the Biblical timeline.
Click to expand...

What deflection would that be?

YEC’ism and the fear and superstition it brought has been supplanted by discovery and knowledge. The planet is not flat. That’s material knowledge which has supplanted literal Bible fables.

If you want math, I can get you the formula that provides the circumference of the planet. Would that help?


----------



## james bond

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Monads With Infinitude Are Not In Anthology Because Greeks Sought But Did Not Find "
> 
> * Substantive Monism Surmises The Rest **
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give an example of mathematical monism.
> Here are the ones I'm familiar with...
> "
> Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:
> 
> _Genus monism_: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
> _Substance monism_: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
> _Property monism_: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
> _Existence monism_: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
> _Priority monism_: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plato.stanford.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plato.stanford.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monadology - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

+1.  I'm a Newton man myself, but Leibniz is right up there in math and calculus.  Dunno who was greater.  Pretty even.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now.  Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity.  With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities.  All of it, you missed haha .  Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time.  Why is that?
> 
> Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing?  It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that *“*_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the general _history_ of supernatural creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.
> 
> I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.
> 
> The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I thought, your side has nothing.  Not even 1+1=2.  Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no math, but deflection.
> 
> You got it backwards.  YEC was there before science discovery, math discovery, space, time, and more.  That's why it wasn't in the Biblical timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What deflection would that be?
> 
> YEC’ism and the fear and superstition it brought has been supplanted by discovery and knowledge. The planet is not flat. That’s material knowledge which has supplanted literal Bible fables.
> 
> If you want math, I can get you the formula that provides the circumference of the planet. Would that help?
Click to expand...


No, I rather have _your own words_ explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> I'm beginning to think you are looney tunes.  Already explained what infinities in the mind are.
> 
> Why don't you prove your actual mind infinity?  Count to infinity for us in your head.
> 
> Hint:  Eventually, you'll be dead.
> 
> And JB ends up as:



And for the biggest lying-ass dog on this thread, James Bond is the





Congratulations, James!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now.  Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity.  With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities.  All of it, you missed haha .  Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time.  Why is that?
> 
> Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing?  It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that *“*_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the general _history_ of supernatural creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.
> 
> I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.
> 
> The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I thought, your side has nothing.  Not even 1+1=2.  Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no math, but deflection.
> 
> You got it backwards.  YEC was there before science discovery, math discovery, space, time, and more.  That's why it wasn't in the Biblical timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What deflection would that be?
> 
> YEC’ism and the fear and superstition it brought has been supplanted by discovery and knowledge. The planet is not flat. That’s material knowledge which has supplanted literal Bible fables.
> 
> If you want math, I can get you the formula that provides the circumference of the planet. Would that help?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I rather have _your own words_ explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Before I divulge that math, you need to swear an oath of allegiance to a secret society.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Why are you becoming so defensive?


That wasn't defensive. I am not sure you know what that word means. 

You have zero evidence. You don't even have a hypothesis as to how a GMO would cause a tumor. You saw a blog headline once, and regurgitated the talking point without knowing that the study it was based on was retracted. 

And, well, that about sums it up. 
.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give an example of mathematical monism.
> 
> Here are the ones I'm familiar with...
> 
> "
> 
> Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:
> 
> 
> _Genus monism_: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
> _Substance monism_: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
> _Property monism_: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
> _Existence monism_: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
> _Priority monism_: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plato.stanford.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey,* James*, I'm still waiting on you to explain how the mathematical concept of an actual infinite_—_that of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something_—_(1) exists outside of minds, (2) existed in the minds of Aristotle, C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper, contrary to your contention, but not in yours, and (3) exists in the minds of everyone else (including those of angels and God himself), but not in yours. Thanks.
> 
> Winning!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think you are looney tunes.  Already explained what infinities in the mind are.
> 
> Why don't you prove your actual mind infinity?  Count to infinity for us in your head.
> 
> Hint:  Eventually, you'll be dead.
> 
> And JB ends up as:
> 
> View attachment 462715
Click to expand...

Aaaand there it is again. The YEC declaration of victory in a science thread. Multiple times, every time. This is the new participation trophy: just declare yourself the winner. Nevermind that the scoreboard we call "reality" has you down by about eleventy zillion.


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now.  Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity.  With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities.  All of it, you missed haha .  Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time.  Why is that?
> 
> Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing?  It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that *“*_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the general _history_ of supernatural creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.
> 
> I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.
> 
> The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I thought, your side has nothing.  Not even 1+1=2.  Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no math, but deflection.
> 
> You got it backwards.  YEC was there before science discovery, math discovery, space, time, and more.  That's why it wasn't in the Biblical timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What deflection would that be?
> 
> YEC’ism and the fear and superstition it brought has been supplanted by discovery and knowledge. The planet is not flat. That’s material knowledge which has supplanted literal Bible fables.
> 
> If you want math, I can get you the formula that provides the circumference of the planet. Would that help?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I rather have _your own words_ explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry. Before I divulge that math, you need to swear an oath of allegiance to a secret society.
Click to expand...


Circumference is equal to the diameter times pi ...


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> I'm beginning to think you are looney tunes.



I know you're a lying-ass dog.



james bond said:


> Already explained what infinities in the mind are.



More lying-ass dog speak.  The only things you've emphatically stated in this wise is that: (1) "the actually infinite only exists in the supernatural world"; (2) "God is infinite", whatever that means in your head; (3) "the mathematical CONCEPT of the actually infinite does not exist in _your_ mind [ . . . except when it does]." 

Those are not explications or definitions at all.  They're bald claims, and the reason the text in the above is struck is because you never actually stated that.  You never state anything that can be definitively nailed down, just as you never state what my actual observation is, as doing the latter would expose your lying-ass dogishness, wouldn't it, you lying-ass dog of a whore? 

Counting toward infinity as the limit, which at any given point in time or being will always entail a finite number of potential infinity in this world or any other, is a never ending process, you obfuscating dumbass. Indeed, you unwittingly expose yourself to be a lying-ass dog again by indirectly telling us what the actual infinite entails and why it does not exist as anything more than *a mathematical CONCEPT of a quantitatively surreal number/value in minds!*

Hot spanking damn! I recall someone else saying the very same thing you just said, albeit, in your case, unwittingly.  

Have you ever noticed how lying-ass dogs always tell on themselves?   

The mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite doesn't exist outside of minds, does it, dumbass?   It's a CONCEPT, dumbass, not a precise/attainable value, dumbass. 



james bond said:


> Why don't you prove your actual mind infinity?



Actual mind infinity?!  More lying-ass dog speak.  Don't you mean _the mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite, which only exists in mind_s, the CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something? 

Why should I prove what I've been telling you all along after YOU just proved it again?



It's almost as if you're a lobotomized zombie . . . or a lying-ass dog of a whore.

*The actual infinite is a mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (in this case, the infinite set of counting numbers) or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something that only exists in minds*, isn't it, dumbass?

                   



james bond said:


> Count to infinity for us in your head.



Go fornicate with yourself, you lying-ass dog of a whore.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> +1.  I'm a Newton man myself, but Leibniz is right up there in math and calculus.  Dunno who was greater.  Pretty even.



You're a lying-ass dog of whore is what you _are.  _

Hey, *James,* so when you read _a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something_, does the mathematical concept of an actual infinite pop into existence inside your mind at all? Perhaps the problem here is episodic amnesia or Alzheimer's disease. It pops into your mind when you read the concept's definition . . . and, then, immediately pops out of your mind. Very curious, seemingly magical. Maybe your dyslexic. No, wait. It's a concept, so that wouldn't explain the problem.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> No, I rather have _your own words_ explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.



So, *James*, you lying-ass dog of a whore, *the mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite*, a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (like the example you gave in the above when you proved my contention, namely, the infinite set of counting numbers), does exist in your mind after all, eh?

You previously claimed that it didn't exist in your mind.

What gives?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I rather have _your own words_ explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, *James*, you lying-ass dog of a whore, *the mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite*, a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (like the example you gave in the above when you proved my contention, namely, the infinite set of counting numbers), does exist in your mind after all, eh?
> 
> You previously claimed that it didn't exist in your mind.
> 
> What gives?
Click to expand...

Looks like we have us one of them there domestic disputes.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Monads With Infinitude Are Not In Anthology Because Greeks Sought But Did Not Find "
> 
> * Substantive Monism Surmises The Rest **
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give an example of mathematical monism.
> Here are the ones I'm familiar with...
> "
> Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:
> 
> _Genus monism_: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
> _Substance monism_: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
> _Property monism_: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
> _Existence monism_: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
> _Priority monism_: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plato.stanford.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plato.stanford.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monadology - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> +1.  I'm a Newton man myself, but Leibniz is right up there in math and calculus.  Dunno who was greater.  Pretty even.
Click to expand...


An actual mind infinity?! 

What the hell is an _actual mind infinity_?!  Is that what a lying-ass dog of a whore calls *the mathematical CONCEPT of the actually infinite, which only exists in minds*, when he's trying to obfuscate the matter?  Or is that a cross between *the mathematical CONCEPT of the actually infinite, which only exists in mind*s, and an actually existing, infinitely mindless, lying-ass dog of a whore?


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Looks like we have us one of them there domestic disputes.



Wish they'd get a hotel room ...


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Wish they'd get a hotel room ...




What are you babbling about, ReinyDays?  You mindlessly argued that potential infinities were actual infinities.


----------



## Hollie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I rather have _your own words_ explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, *James*, you lying-ass dog of a whore, *the mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite*, a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (like the example you gave in the above when you proved my contention, namely, the infinite set of counting numbers), does exist in your mind after all, eh?
> 
> You previously claimed that it didn't exist in your mind.
> 
> What gives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like we have us one of them there domestic disputes.
Click to expand...

I hope neither launches a jihad.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I rather have _your own words_ explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, *James*, you lying-ass dog of a whore, *the mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite*, a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (like the example you gave in the above when you proved my contention, namely, the infinite set of counting numbers), does exist in your mind after all, eh?
> 
> You previously claimed that it didn't exist in your mind.
> 
> What gives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like we have us one of them there domestic disputes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope neither launches a jihad.
Click to expand...

Like the real jihadis, they mostly will harm each other.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is displaying signs of dogma here it is you.  Am I trying to change your beliefs or are you dogmatically pursuing me in an attempt to make me believe as you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science isn't about belief ... it's about observation ... and that's your flaw here in this discussion, this scientific theory you're advancing is something we _cannot_ observe, by definition ... "divine intervention" is outside what science can address ...
Click to expand...


Science isn't about belief?  So you don't believe in the methodology of science or its underlying metaphysics?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you becoming so defensive?
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't defensive. I am not sure you know what that word means.
> 
> You have zero evidence. You don't even have a hypothesis as to how a GMO would cause a tumor. You saw a blog headline once, and regurgitated the talking point without knowing that the study it was based on was retracted.
> 
> And, well, that about sums it up.
> .
Click to expand...


I think there isn't enough evidence because one has to show how much GMO and from where it came from first.  It is not easy to do.  Yet, many people are concerned and have opted to eat non-GMO foods whenever possible.  How else would Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market become so successful?  You do not advertise a food is GMO  .

If GMO was okay, then I would not get so defensive.  I'd promote it.  But I notice you do not exactly do that.


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> James Bond is the
> 
> View attachment 462715
> 
> Congratulations, James!



Thank you, you lying ass dog haha.

But I want you to count to infinity in your head.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> Thank you, you lying ass dog haha.
> 
> But I want you to count to infinity in your head.



One cannot count to infinity, can one, dumbass?

The actual infinite is a mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (in this case, the infinite set of counting numbers), isn't it, dumbass?

The actual infinite only exists as a mathematical CONCEPT, and it only exists in minds, doesn't it, dumbass?

You're a lying-ass dog, aren't you, dumbass?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is displaying signs of dogma here it is you.  Am I trying to change your beliefs or are you dogmatically pursuing me in an attempt to make me believe as you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science isn't about belief ... it's about observation ... and that's your flaw here in this discussion, this scientific theory you're advancing is something we _cannot_ observe, by definition ... "divine intervention" is outside what science can address ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science isn't about belief?  So you don't believe in the methodology of science or its underlying metaphysics?
Click to expand...

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> Thank you, you lying ass dog haha.
> 
> But I want you to count to infinity in your head.



Hey, *James*, I'm still waiting on you to explain how God, an indivisible, unembodied mind of incomparable greatness and perfection, is composed of an actually infinite, quantitatively divisible substance, which would necessarily be material. 

You're a lying-ass dog, aren't you?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Like the real jihadis, they mostly will harm each other.



How about like the real GMO foods, they will cause cancer to each other haha?

Don't go off your rocker again over it.  I've already said trying to prove GMO foods causes cancer and tumors would be like saying if you eat GMO foods, then the boogeyman will get you.

(Such as in -- Sinister (2012) - IMDb.  What an evil twist at the end.)


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> How about like the real GMO foods, they will cause cancer to each other haha?
> 
> Don't go off your rocker again over it.  I've already said trying to prove GMO foods causes cancer and tumors would be like saying if you eat GMO foods, then the boogeyman will get you.
> 
> (Such as in -- Sinister (2012) - IMDb.  What an evil twist at the end.)


So, *James*, you lying-ass dog of a whore, *the mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite*, a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (like the example you gave in the above when you proved my contention, namely, the infinite set of counting numbers), does exist in your mind after all, eh?  You previously claimed that it didn't exist in your mind.  

You're a lying-ass dog, aren't you?


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> How about like the real GMO foods, they will cause cancer to each other haha?
> 
> Don't go off your rocker again over it.  I've already said trying to prove GMO foods causes cancer and tumors would be like saying if you eat GMO foods, then the boogeyman will get you.
> 
> (Such as in -- Sinister (2012) - IMDb.  What an evil twist at the end.)



You lying-ass dog.


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, you lying ass dog haha.
> 
> But I want you to count to infinity in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, *James*, I'm still waiting on you to explain how God, an indivisible, unembodied mind of incomparable greatness and perfection, is composed of an actually infinite, quantitatively divisible substance, which would necessarily be material.
> 
> You're a lying-ass dog, aren't you?
Click to expand...


Haha.  You provided it yourself.  The proof was in the KCA as the infinitely powerful God.

*Thus, you're the dirty lying arse dog being wrong about actual infinity.  It may be due to a long line in the Rawlings.*



Ringtone said:


>



The ignore boogeyman will get you.  He loves to get lying arse dogs.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> How about like the real GMO foods, they will cause cancer to each other haha?
> 
> Don't go off your rocker again over it.  I've already said trying to prove GMO foods causes cancer and tumors would be like saying if you eat GMO foods, then the boogeyman will get you.
> 
> (Such as in -- Sinister (2012) - IMDb.  What an evil twist at the end.)



So,* James*, did you ever explain what it means to say that the actually infinite only exists in the supernatural world?  Is that like a secret code or something? 

Only exists in the supernatural world, he says.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> The ignore boogeyman will get you.  He loves to get lying arse dogs.



Hey, *James*, did you get your theology out of a Crackerjack box?


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> The ignore boogeyman will get you.  He loves to get lying arse dogs.



What the hell is an _actual mind infinity_?! 

Is that what a lying-ass dog of a whore calls *the mathematical CONCEPT of the actually infinite, which only exists in minds*, when he's trying to obfuscate the matter? Or is that a cross between *the mathematical CONCEPT of the actually infinite, which only exists in mind*s, and an actually existing, infinitely mindless, lying-ass dog of a whore?


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> The ignore boogeyman will get you.  He loves to get lying arse dogs.


An _actual mind infinity_, he says.

__

Got link?


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Wish they'd get a hotel room ...



Or was it actual infinities were potential infinities?  I don't remember.  No matter.  It's hilarious either way.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is displaying signs of dogma here it is you.  Am I trying to change your beliefs or are you dogmatically pursuing me in an attempt to make me believe as you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science isn't about belief ... it's about observation ... and that's your flaw here in this discussion, this scientific theory you're advancing is something we _cannot_ observe, by definition ... "divine intervention" is outside what science can address ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science isn't about belief?  So you don't believe in the methodology of science or its underlying metaphysics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?
Click to expand...


So scientists don't believe things about empirical data?  So empirical data interpret themselves?  So some form of naturalism doesn't inform scientific interpretations?  

That's weird.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> Science isn't about belief?  So you don't believe in the methodology of science or its underlying metaphysics?



Science is never based on belief ... only on observation ... take an iron weight chest high and drop it, there's no belief that it will fall to the ground, we can observe it hit the ground ... every time ... we define this as gravity, and all of us agree what this word means ... we see it with our own eyes, neither faith nor belief is required to understand this  ... just simple observation ...

I don't know what you mean by "believe in methodology" ... I pour the water before I load the basket with coffee every morning, as a method ... nothing wrong with loading the coffee first and then the water ... what's there to believe in either way? ...

"Metaphysics" is strictly philosophy ... the scientific version is plain old regular "physics" ... 

Not that we don't ask students of science to believe certain things, happens all the time ... we have to accept covalent bonding our first two years of chemistry lessons before we're taught what this actually is ... the difference is that the field values are known, only the student is asked to believe, not the instructor ...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is displaying signs of dogma here it is you.  Am I trying to change your beliefs or are you dogmatically pursuing me in an attempt to make me believe as you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science isn't about belief ... it's about observation ... and that's your flaw here in this discussion, this scientific theory you're advancing is something we _cannot_ observe, by definition ... "divine intervention" is outside what science can address ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science isn't about belief?  So you don't believe in the methodology of science or its underlying metaphysics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So scientists don't believe things about empirical data?  So empirical data interpret themselves?  So some form of naturalism doesn't inform scientific interpretations?
> 
> That's weird.
Click to expand...


There is no requirement for "belief" in the face of empirical data. One can reach conclusions when the data supports the theory and testing leads to conclusions. This is a pretty basic method for separating mere gainsay from what we call knowledge. The data supporting biological evolution to include fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., have been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of scientists in varying fields of study of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? You have consistently failed to support your claims to your gods.  Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> There is no requirement for "belief" in the face of empirical data.



That's weird.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Science is never based on belief . . . only on observation. . . .



So scientists don't believe things about empirical data? So empirical data interpret themselves? So some form of naturalism doesn't inform scientific interpretations?

That's weird.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no requirement for "belief" in the face of empirical data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's weird.
Click to expand...

My post left you completely befuddled. 

Consider a nice hot cup of tea and a coma.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I think there isn't enough evidence because one has to show how much GMO and from where it came from first.


No, one would only have to connect the tumors to the one or two proteins produced by the modification. Do you even understand what GMOs are?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> So scientists don't believe things about empirical data?


He said "science", not scientists. Pay attention!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there isn't enough evidence because one has to show how much GMO and from where it came from first.
> 
> 
> 
> No, one would only have to connect the tumors to the one or two proteins produced by the modification. Do you even understand what GMOs are?
Click to expand...


Really?  I  heard it was altering the DNA.  I can't believe it would be so easy.  Which one or two proteins would identify GMO foods?

So many scare stories out there.  Monsanto is good and bad.  Who do you believe for the believers?

'It’s also hard for individuals to trust study results, as many are conducted by Monsanto, the maker of most genetically modified organisms, and others that aren't conducted in what researchers consider an acceptable scientific way.

“Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe,” said the Institute for Responsible Technology, which is opposed to GMOs. “They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.”









						Is There Evidence GMO Foods Cause Cancer?
					

The evidence for and against the safety of GMOs in the food supply is confusing, and can be difficult for the layperson to understand. Determining whether eating genetically modified organisms increases the risks for cancer and other diseases can be a challenge. It's also...




					www.newsmax.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I heard it was altering the DNA.


Now how in the bloody hell would a food alter your DNA?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard it was altering the DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> Now how in the bloody hell would a food alter your DNA?
Click to expand...


I thought so.  You don't know about the one of two proteins.  Nothing to back up your statements.

Haha.  Not altering your DNA.  

What I heard was the evo scientists are altering the DNA of the food. not just the proteins.  The modified proteins would go directly into your bloodstream.


----------



## james bond

Would the atheist evolution fans admit their scientists are artificial selecting the foods?


----------



## Monk-Eye

** A Round The World And Back **


Ringtone said:


> One cannot count to infinity, can one, dumbass?
> The actual infinite is a mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (in this case, the infinite set of counting numbers), isn't it, dumbass?
> The actual infinite only exists as a mathematical CONCEPT, and it only exists in minds, doesn't it, dumbass?
> You're a lying-ass dog, aren't you, dumbass?


The inductions and deductions from properties of Identity matrix - Wikipedia are closely related with interpretations about monism .

A clear scope for the meaning of an Irrational number - Wikipedia could be useful .

An element with infinitude does not directly imply that an irrational number is magnanimous .

Consider an irrational number , for example the ratio of square root of 2 and 2 , or sqrt ( 2 )  /  2 , the irrational number is bounded , meaning that numbers on either side of the irrational number can be chosen to indicate an upper and lower bound , however choosing numbers nearer to the infinite number below the upper bound and above the lower bound until the distance between the numbers chosen and the number itself is zero does not ever occur .

Where an irrational number is presumed its properties are perceived to be indeterminate and more colloquially described as infinite , or perpetual , or without end when applying hermeneutics .

In antiquity an irrational number was denoted as a Surd - Wikipedia .









						Taylor's theorem - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




** Appearances More Easily Through Natural Sciences **


Ringtone said:


> Agree.
> The mathematical concepts of infinitudes (i.e., actual infinities) and logic certainly point to the existential necessity of the eternal, but from that it does not follow, assuming I understand you correctly, that the eternal existent is an actual infinite.


An eternal existence would be an identity set with identity elements that have a quality of infinitude .

An identity set can be a singular infinitesimal element or an identity set can be a set with an infinite value of identity elements each with a property of infinitude , as infinitesimals , as monads .

** Reservations On Judgment **


Ringtone said:


> For the sake of clarity, do you subscribe to philosophical monism?


I subscribe to things which are interesting to me and philosophical monism is interesting to me , there are also contributions to be made .

** Proof Must Be Falsifiable **


Ringtone said:


> Yes, after a fashion, namely, in the revelational sense regarding the existential necessity of the eternal.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> So scientists don't believe things about empirical data? So empirical data interpret themselves? So some form of naturalism doesn't inform scientific interpretations?
> That's weird.



No, of course not ... there's no belief to be had with empirical data ... in fact, science goes to great lengths to _*avoid*_ any interpretations of empirical data ... the air temperature is 14ºC, nothing left to interpret ... 

You should try reading the scientific media outlets more ... where authors are required to be explicit and detailed on any interpretations or assumptions they make in their discourse ... as these are eminently challengeable ... and should be ... and more experiments conducted to remove interpretations and replace them with empirical data ... Micheal Faraday is an excellent example of this, he always lets the results of one experiment lead him to designing the next experiment, without trying to interpret the results ... and today he's credited with being the first to demonstrate the basic principles of modern physics ... Maxwell, Einstein and the founders of QM all relied heavily on Faradays work ...


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> What I heard was the evo scientists are altering the DNA of the food. not just the proteins.  The modified proteins would go directly into your bloodstream.



just a nitpick ... ALL proteins we eat are broken down into their component amino-acids ... and then re-formed into human proteins ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I heard was the evo scientists are altering the DNA of the food. not just the proteins.  The modified proteins would go directly into your bloodstream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just a nitpick ... ALL proteins we eat are broken down into their component amino-acids ... and then re-formed into human proteins ...
Click to expand...


Monsanto is famous for poisonous Roundup.

The nit is blood is the liquid of life and one wouldn't want bad stuff like poisons going in there.  Can you say the modified proteins are good for you?  How do you know?


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> Why don't you prove your actual mind infinity? Count to infinity for us in your head.
> 
> Hint: Eventually, you'll be dead.



A "mind infinity" . . . and it's "actual" too! 

You do realize that the word_ mind_ is used as either a noun or a verb only, not an adjective, right?



Got link for this mind infinity thingy?  Oh, wait!  You're a lying-ass dog of a whore, as the process of counting toward infinity as the limit always existentially entails a finite number of potential infinity at any given point in time or being _in_ the process.  You're the lying-ass dog unsuccessfully trying to imply that _I_ believe one can count to infinity.

What a lying-ass dog of an obfuscating whore!

Don't you mean *the mathematical CONCEPT of an actual infinite, which only exists in minds?*  But, of course, if you cited the *actuality* of my observation, rather than the deformed straw man of a grammatical monstrosity in the above . . . your lying-ass dogishness would be manifest, especially given the fact that you yourself unwittingly proved that what I've been telling you all along is right.

Hot spanking damn!  You falsified yourself.



It's almost as if you have nowhere else to go to obscure your lying-ass dogishness.

You can't allude to the infinite set of countable numbers anymore, as you have now unwittingly conceded that to be an example of what an actual infinity really is.  Just like I have been telling you all along, it's *a mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something,* isn't it?   It's *the mathematical CONCEPT of a quantitatively surreal number/value, which only exists in minds,* isn't it?

One cannot count to an unattainable number, can one, dumbass?

Why don't _you_ count to infinity as you fornicate with yourself, dumbass?

Have your wife send us word when your dead so we can send flowers.

Oh, the irony!

You can't go back to claiming that the actual infinite only exists in the supernatural world, *by which you mean God himself*, given that you have now conceded that the actually infinite is *a mathematical CONCEPT of a quantitatively divisible value or substance.*

God is an indivisible, unembodied mind, isn't he, dumbass?

God is _not_ a divisible composite of physical magnitude, is he, dumbass?

It's almost as if the you have been unwittingly conflating *the qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics *all your life.

When we say that "God is infinite" (an _adjectival_ declarative, not a _nounal_ declarative, dumbass), we mean that he's an indivisible being of incomparable greatness and perfection.  It's strictly a superlative designation of quality.

The *qualitative* infinity of classical theism has absolutely nothing to do with the quantitative designations of mathematics regarding potential infinities and actual infinities, does it, dumbass?

It's almost as if your lying-ass dogishness has painted you into a corner with no place else to hide:  .  It's almost as if you're pants are on fire. 

Oh, what tangled webs we weave. . . .


----------



## Ringtone

Ringtone said:


> So scientists don't believe things about empirical data? So empirical data interpret themselves? So some form of naturalism doesn't inform scientific interpretations?
> 
> That's weird.





ReinyDays said:


> You should try reading the scientific media outlets more. . . .



Like *Bond, James Bond,* you should stop obfuscating my actual pont.  Thanks.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> So scientists don't believe things about empirical data? So empirical data interpret themselves? So some form of naturalism doesn't inform scientific interpretations?
> 
> 
> 
> Like *Bond, James Bond,* you should stop obfuscating my actual pont.  Thanks.
Click to expand...


You've muddied your point already ... mixing "belief" with "empirical" ... those two words mean opposites (almost) ... perhaps it is you who should clearify what you mean to say ...


----------



## Ringtone

Ringtone said:


> So scientists don't believe things about empirical data? So empirical data interpret themselves? So some form of naturalism doesn't inform scientific interpretations?
> 
> That's weird.





Hollie said:


> My post left you completely befuddled.
> 
> Consider a nice hot cup of tea and a coma.



Actually, my point still hasn't sunk into that mind of yours.  Perhaps its quarters are too cramped due to its size.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> You've muddied your point already ... mixing "belief" with "empirical" ... those two words mean opposites (almost) ... perhaps it is you who should clearify what you mean to say ...



Of course, I did.  See above.  

So you don't believe the first principle underlying scientific methodology is true?

That's weird.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> Of course, I did.  See above.



Please point it out ...



Ringtone said:


> So you don't believe the first principle underlying scientific methodology is true?



Which first principle is that? ... that something must be observable? ... what's to be believed? ...


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> Thank you, you lying ass dog haha.
> 
> But I want you to count to infinity in your head.



Hey, *James*, ignorance is not a sin, and it's nothing to be ashamed of.  None of us are God.  

You know what is a sin?  Lying.

I civilly and matter-a-factly informed you twice, from too different angles, why your contention regarding the actually infinite could not be right. After the second time, you went all wack on me . . . as if I were the idiot.  So I took the gloves off.

When I made it abundantly clear that there was no way in hell you could be correct, especially after I showed how you had unwittingly falsified yourself in your deceit, you consciously held your nose and lied again.

Did you ask Jesus to forgive you?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> So scientists don't believe things about empirical data? So empirical data interpret themselves? So some form of naturalism doesn't inform scientific interpretations?
> 
> That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My post left you completely befuddled.
> 
> Consider a nice hot cup of tea and a coma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my point still hasn't sunk into that mind of yours.  Perhaps its quarters are too cramped due to its size.
Click to expand...

You're not understanding the terms you use. I addressed your errors and false statements in an earlier post. You made no effort to address that post.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Haha. Not altering your DNA.


I see. I thought you meant that, as this is a myth often espoused by irrational GMO fearmongers like you. 

Yes Bond,  we understand that DNA is modified in genetically modified organisms. I mean..it's right there in the name, bro.

 And your point is...?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And your point is...?



You couldn't figure out what I meant and was wrong due to being soooooooooo _defensive_ about GMO causing cancer.

If it was safe, then there would be no need for you to be defensive.  In fact, I said why doesn't the GMO groups just tell us by labeling the GMO foods and ingredients, i.e. go on a marketing offensive like the non-GMO groups?  People just have to look for the "organic" or "non-GMO" logo.  No need to be against labeling.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You couldn't figure out what I meant and was wrong due to being soooooooooo _defensive_ about GMO causing cancer.


No, i explained why: the anti-gmo kooks often spread that ridiculous talking point.

In the topic isnt you misunderstanding me. It's you misunderstanding GMOs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> In fact, I said why doesn't the GMO groups just tell us by labeling the GMO foods and ingredients, i.e. go on a marketing offensive like the non-GMO groups?


Because they know irrational fear of GMOs -- like the horseshit you are peddling -- will harm their revenue.


----------



## james bond

Instead, we have to have this kind of labeling in states where they are forcing cos to label.






Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> In the topic isnt you misunderstanding me. It's you misunderstanding GM



It's not just me.  There are a whole bunch of people for non-GMOs, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market, and more stores are successful in reaching this market.

In fact, the non-GMO label has taken the lead in terms of marketing and rising sales due to the pro-GMO cos and spending big money to hide and defeat measures for more openness.  Why would they do that when it could be a a sign of quality and safety?  Are you saying it isn't?  For example, it may be safe, but less quality?  Remember, I said foods can be fast, cheap, and good, but you can only have two?

I think it makes their food look shady, secretive, and unsafe when you said it was safe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?


Sounds just fine to me, because I don't possess an irrational fear of GMOs.


james bond said:


> There are a whole bunch of people for non-GMOs, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market, and more stores.


Yes, I have pointed that out twice, now. Though, let me help you out, since you are a bit gullible: Those businesses you mentioned are capitalizing on irrational people.


----------



## Ringtone

Monk-Eye said:


> The inductions and deductions from properties of Identity matrix - Wikipedia are closely related with interpretations about monism.



Philosophical monism, right?

Following the order of the discourse, the above alludes to the countably infinite set of natural/counting numbers, yes?



Monk-Eye said:


> A clear scope for the meaning of an Irrational number - Wikipedia could be useful.
> 
> An element with infinitude does not directly imply that an irrational number is magnanimous.
> 
> Consider an irrational number , for example the ratio of square root of 2 and 2 , or sqrt ( 2 )  /  2 , the irrational number is bounded , meaning that numbers on either side of the irrational number can be chosen to indicate an upper and lower bound , however choosing numbers nearer to the infinite number below the upper bound and above the lower bound until the distance between the numbers chosen and the number itself is zero does not ever occur .
> 
> Where an irrational number is presumed its properties are perceived to be indeterminate and more colloquially described as infinite , or perpetual , or without end when applying hermeneutics.
> 
> In antiquity an irrational number was denoted as a Surd - Wikipedia .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taylor's theorem - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



I agree with the above, but I'm not sure I follow you below.  Given the order of discourse, I wrote:



Ringtone said:


> The mathematical concepts of infinitudes (i.e., actual infinities) and logic certainly point to the existential necessity of the eternal, but from that it does not follow, assuming I understand you correctly, that the eternal existent is an actual infinite.



Then you wrote:



Monk-Eye said:


> An eternal existence would be an identity set with identity elements that have a quality of infinitude.
> 
> An identity set can be a singular infinitesimal element or an identity set can be a set with an infinite value of identity elements each with a property of infinitude, as infinitesimals, as monads.



Again, assuming I understand what you're getting at, my response would be that the eternal existent could not be either a physical composite nor a qualitatively divisible being, but would necessarily be a comprehensively self-subsistent whole entailing all attributes of greatness and perfection at once!  In other words, for example, humanity's set of knowledge is an aggregate.  God understands all things at once in a comprehensively indivisible cognition.

The state or quality of infinitude pertains to a physical magnitude with no limit, which is an absurdity, or to a conceptual magnitude with no limit, the latter being _the mathematical concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate quantity or value_, which only exists in minds as an idea.



Ringtone said:


> For the sake of clarity, do you subscribe to philosophical monism?





Monk-Eye said:


> I subscribe to things which are interesting to me and philosophical monism is interesting to me, there are also contributions to be made.



Fair enough.



Ringtone said:


> Yes, after a fashion, namely, in the revelational sense regarding the existential necessity of the eternal.



*


Monk-Eye said:



			* Proof Must Be Falsifiable *
		
Click to expand...

*
Fair enough, but _proof_ in what sense?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds just fine to me, because I don't possess an irrational fear of GMOs.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a whole bunch of people for non-GMOs, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market, and more stores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I have pointed that out twice, now. Though, let me help you out, since you are a bit gullible: Those businesses you mentioned are capitalizing on irrational people.
Click to expand...


I know that, but that isn't my point.  It's about why the genetic engineering cos aren't more open and embrace a logo for GMO products.  You don't want produced by genetic engineering or genetically engineered on the label.  Why not have a nice logo to be proud of it as a mark of quality and safety?

The way they are behaving, it makes the processing of the food sound worse and have the opposite effect.  If it's a benefit, then why not capitalize on it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's about why the genetic engineering cos aren't more open and embrace a logo for GMO products.


Which I have directly addressed twice, only to have you ignore my direct point twice. Why are you like this?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?



Why do you feel that?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about why the genetic engineering cos aren't more open and embrace a logo for GMO products.
> 
> 
> 
> Which I have directly addressed twice, only to have you ignore my direct point twice. Why are you like this?
Click to expand...


I thought you meant the non-GMO cos were capitalizing on gullible people.  What are the GMO cos doing?  They're scaring the same customers away into the hands of the non-GMOs.

It's clear you do not understand marketing.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel that?
Click to expand...


It could be poison.  Monsanto makes Roundup.  Many people want foods that is natural and nutritious.  They want food that taste good.  You didn't understand the cheap, fast, and good of food processing.


----------



## Dr Grump

Ringtone said:


> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.


Is that you, Ding?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I thought you meant the non-GMO cos were capitalizing on gullible people.


They are, absolutely. As is every single grocery store,  or restaurant that features "Non-GMO!"



james bond said:


> What are the GMO cos doing? They're scaring the same customers away into the hands of the non-GMOs.


Total nonsense. For one...how do you know the product is GMO, if not labelled as such? This simple question makes your point look pretty stupid.

They know it is not smart to accept the labelling, because irrational people like you will suddenly stop buying their product. It isn't rocket surgery. But you will be you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It could be poison.


What could be poison? This should be hilarious.


----------



## Ringtone

Dr Grump said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you, Ding?
Click to expand...


I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible.  See OP again and see Ding's stance.  We are not the same person, dummy.  I told you that before.

Does that answer your question?


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Instead, we have to have this kind of labeling in states where they are forcing cos to label.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the topic isnt you misunderstanding me. It's you misunderstanding GM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just me.  There are a whole bunch of people for non-GMOs, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market, and more stores are successful in reaching this market.
> 
> In fact, the non-GMO label has taken the lead in terms of marketing and rising sales due to the pro-GMO cos and spending big money to hide and defeat measures for more openness.  Why would they do that when it could be a a sign of quality and safety?  Are you saying it isn't?  For example, it may be safe, but less quality?  Remember, I said foods can be fast, cheap, and good, but you can only have two?
> 
> I think it makes their food look shady, secretive, and unsafe when you said it was safe.
Click to expand...


Do you know what's sprayed on this corn by the farmers? ...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you, Ding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible.  See OP again and see Ding's stance.  We are not the same person, dummy.  I told you that before.
> 
> Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...

You’re certainly free to believe in a flat earth, that your gods magically created the planet 6,000 years ago. Believe what you want.

As it was delineated for you earlier, there is no requirement for “belief” when the facts are confirmed by data. Biological evolution is a fact confirmed by the data.

Everyone can understand that YEC’ists feel threatened by science because science matters such as biological evolution present direct challenges to the YEC’ist vision of supernatural creation, Arks cruising the seas, “kinds” two by two and their comforting fables.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you, Ding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible.  See OP again and see Ding's stance.  We are not the same person, dummy.  I told you that before.
> 
> Does that answer your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re certainly free to believe in a flat earth, that your gods magically created the planet 6,000 years ago. Believe what you want.
> 
> As it was delineated for you earlier, there is no requirement for “belief” when the facts are confirmed by data. Biological evolution is a fact confirmed by the data.
> 
> Everyone can understand that YEC’ists feel threatened by science because science matters such as biological evolution present direct challenges to the YEC’ist vision of supernatural creation, Arks cruising the seas, “kinds” two by two and their comforting fables.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you, Ding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible.  See OP again and see Ding's stance.  We are not the same person, dummy.  I told you that before.
> 
> Does that answer your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re certainly free to believe in a flat earth, that your gods magically created the planet 6,000 years ago. Believe what you want.
> 
> As it was delineated for you earlier, there is no requirement for “belief” when the facts are confirmed by data. Biological evolution is a fact confirmed by the data.
> 
> Everyone can understand that YEC’ists feel threatened by science because science matters such as biological evolution present direct challenges to the YEC’ist vision of supernatural creation, Arks cruising the seas, “kinds” two by two and their comforting fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


YEC’ists retreat to cartoons because they’re incapable of refuting facts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be poison.  Monsanto makes Roundup.  Many people want foods that is natural and nutritious.  They want food that taste good.  You didn't understand the cheap, fast, and good of food processing.
Click to expand...


*It could be poison.  *

A GMO could be poison and no one noticed while they were developing it? LOL!

*Monsanto makes Roundup.*

You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?


----------



## Dr Grump

Ringtone said:


> I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible.  See OP again and see Ding's stance.  We are not the same person, dummy.  I told you that before.
> 
> Does that answer your question?



Never asked you before, Dummy.

And if you don't believe that evolution is possible, you're as dumb as a sack of rocks. And if you don't believe that evolution is possible, but some has just been around since year dot, then you are even dumber.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They are, absolutely. As is every single grocery store, or restaurant that features "Non-GMO!"



Well, there are many people who disagree with you including me.  If GMO is safe, then the cos who genetically engineer the food should be open about it.  Anyway, it is a personal choice.  There is no harm in being careful.  Besides, I think organic food (the way food was grown before Darwin) tastes better.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Total nonsense. For one...how do you know the product is GMO, if not labelled as such? This simple question makes your point look pretty stupid.
> 
> They know it is not smart to accept the labelling, because irrational people like you will suddenly stop buying their product. It isn't rocket surgery. But you will be you.



Why would people stop buying the product if genetic engineering is safe?  That sounds irrational to me.

Isn't mutation supposed to beneficial?  Don't atheists believe in mutations?  I don't think it is, but I'm YEC.  For example, one can get fast and cheap foods, i.e. fast GMO foods (assuming they are because they do not advertise as non-GMO which would be more expensive), but they aren't good for you.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It could be poison.  *
> 
> A GMO could be poison and no one noticed while they were developing it? LOL!
> 
> *Monsanto makes Roundup.*
> 
> You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?



Haha.  I think most of know that.  Duh.  

What's interesting is you mention seed.  What organic farmers want are plants and trees, but also have them bear seeds or fruit.  

On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds?  Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit?


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, we have to have this kind of labeling in states where they are forcing cos to label.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the topic isnt you misunderstanding me. It's you misunderstanding GM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just me.  There are a whole bunch of people for non-GMOs, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market, and more stores are successful in reaching this market.
> 
> In fact, the non-GMO label has taken the lead in terms of marketing and rising sales due to the pro-GMO cos and spending big money to hide and defeat measures for more openness.  Why would they do that when it could be a a sign of quality and safety?  Are you saying it isn't?  For example, it may be safe, but less quality?  Remember, I said foods can be fast, cheap, and good, but you can only have two?
> 
> I think it makes their food look shady, secretive, and unsafe when you said it was safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what's sprayed on this corn by the farmers? ...
Click to expand...


Not Roundup for non-GMO, but go ahead and tell us for the world to hear.

Is this a marketing tool?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are, absolutely. As is every single grocery store, or restaurant that features "Non-GMO!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are many people who disagree with you including me.  If GMO is safe, then the cos who genetically engineer the food should be open about it.  Anyway, it is a personal choice.  There is no harm in being careful.  Besides, I think organic food (the way food was grown before Darwin) tastes better.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total nonsense. For one...how do you know the product is GMO, if not labelled as such? This simple question makes your point look pretty stupid.
> 
> They know it is not smart to accept the labelling, because irrational people like you will suddenly stop buying their product. It isn't rocket surgery. But you will be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would people stop buying the product if genetic engineering is safe?  That sounds irrational to me.
> 
> Isn't mutation supposed to beneficial?  Don't atheists believe in mutations?  I don't think it is, but I'm YEC.  For example, one can get fast and cheap foods, i.e. fast GMO foods (assuming they are because they do not advertise as non-GMO which would be more expensive), but they aren't good for you.
Click to expand...


*Why would people stop buying the product if genetic engineering is safe? That sounds irrational to me.*


Lots of irrational people out there.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It could be poison.  *
> 
> A GMO could be poison and no one noticed while they were developing it? LOL!
> 
> *Monsanto makes Roundup.*
> 
> You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  I think most of know that.  Duh.
> 
> What's interesting is you mention seed.  What organic farmers want are plants and trees, but also have them bear seeds or fruit.
> 
> On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds?  Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit?
Click to expand...


*On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds? Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit? *

Usually, with a few exceptions.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" May Be "

* Working On **


Ringtone said:


> Philosophical monism, right?
> Following the order of the discourse, the above alludes to the countably infinite set of natural/counting numbers, yes?


An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .





__





						Unitary matrix - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_In linear algebra, a complex square matrix U is *unitary* if its conjugate transpose U* is also its inverse, that is, if_
_





 where __*I is the identity matrix.*_

_In physics, especially in quantum mechanics, the Hermitian adjoint of a matrix is denoted by a dagger (†) and the equation above becomes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The real analogue of a unitary matrix is an orthogonal matrix. Unitary matrices have significant importance in quantum mechanics because they preserve norms, and thus, probability amplitudes._





__





						Orthogonal matrix - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




** Curious Preferences Through Direct Or Indirect Observation **


Ringtone said:


> I agree with the above, but I'm not sure I follow you below.  Given the order of discourse, I wrote:
> Then you wrote:
> Again, assuming I understand what you're getting at, my response would be that the eternal existent could not be either a physical composite nor a qualitatively divisible being, but would necessarily be a comprehensively self-subsistent whole entailing all attributes of greatness and perfection at once!  In other words, for example, humanity's set of knowledge is an aggregate.  God understands all things at once in a comprehensively indivisible cognition.


To allude that gawd understands all things is often related that gawd is intuitive to mammon ; and , an equivalent parallel scheme in science of nature is that existence is intuitive by induction and deduction from an a'priori basis .

** Information From Data Provided As Is **


Ringtone said:


> The state or quality of infinitude pertains to a physical magnitude with no limit, which is an absurdity, or to a conceptual magnitude with no limit, the latter being _the mathematical concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate quantity or value_, which only exists in minds as an idea.


An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .









						Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				







__





						Action at a distance - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




** Depends On Which We Mean To Validate With Certainty Rite Or Write **


Ringtone said:


> Fair enough.
> Fair enough, but _proof_ in what sense?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Why would people stop buying the product if genetic engineering is safe?


Maybe that is because i have called it irrational four times. In posts. Posted directly to you. 

Why are you like this?


----------



## Ringtone

Dr Grump said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible.  See OP again and see Ding's stance.  We are not the same person, dummy.  I told you that before.
> 
> Does that answer your question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never asked you before, Dummy.
> 
> And if you don't believe that evolution is possible, you're as dumb as a sack of rocks. And if you don't believe that evolution is possible, but some has just been around since year dot, then you are even dumber.
Click to expand...




You repeatedly implied that Ding and I are the same person on another thread and on this one.  Shut up, liar.

As for your failure to grasp or directly address the argument in the OP regarding evodelusion's underderlying, metaphysical apriority, you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> Say what?



Yeah ... *Monk-Eye* knows math ... over my pay-grade but sounds correct ... we both should think of his posts as learning opportunities ...


----------



## Ringtone

Monk-Eye said:


> *" May Be "
> 
> * Working On **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophical monism, right?
> Following the order of the discourse, the above alludes to the countably infinite set of natural/counting numbers, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unitary matrix - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In linear algebra, a complex square matrix U is *unitary* if its conjugate transpose U* is also its inverse, that is, if_
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where __*I is the identity matrix.*_
> 
> _In physics, especially in quantum mechanics, the Hermitian adjoint of a matrix is denoted by a dagger (†) and the equation above becomes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real analogue of a unitary matrix is an orthogonal matrix. Unitary matrices have significant importance in quantum mechanics because they preserve norms, and thus, probability amplitudes._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Orthogonal matrix - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** Curious Preferences Through Direct Or Indirect Observation **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the above, but I'm not sure I follow you below.  Given the order of discourse, I wrote:
> Then you wrote:
> Again, assuming I understand what you're getting at, my response would be that the eternal existent could not be either a physical composite nor a qualitatively divisible being, but would necessarily be a comprehensively self-subsistent whole entailing all attributes of greatness and perfection at once!  In other words, for example, humanity's set of knowledge is an aggregate.  God understands all things at once in a comprehensively indivisible cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To allude that gawd understands all things is often related that gawd is intuitive to mammon ; and , an equivalent parallel scheme in science of nature is that existence is intuitive by induction and deduction from an a'priori basis .
> 
> ** Information From Data Provided As Is **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state or quality of infinitude pertains to a physical magnitude with no limit, which is an absurdity, or to a conceptual magnitude with no limit, the latter being _the mathematical concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate quantity or value_, which only exists in minds as an idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Action at a distance - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** Depends On Which We Mean To Validate With Certainty Rite Or Write **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> Fair enough, but _proof_ in what sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Monk-Eye said:


> An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements, *and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis*.


Say what?  Relevance?



Monk-Eye said:


> . . . gawd is intuitive to mammon . . .


Say what?

*


Monk-Eye said:



			* Depends On Which We Mean To Validate With Certainty Rite Or Write *
		
Click to expand...

*Say what?

Moving on. . . .

I wrote:


Ringtone said:


> Yes, after a fashion, namely, in the revelational sense regarding the existential necessity of the eternal.



You wrote:
*


Monk-Eye said:



			* Proof Must Be Falsifiable *
		
Click to expand...

*The _a priori_ apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof?  That's weird.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... *Monk-Eye* knows math ... over my pay-grade but sounds correct ... we both should think of his posts as learning opportunities ...
Click to expand...


It sounds, correct to you, eh?

I follow the math just fine; what I don't follow is its relevance to my observation.

In our discourse and in two different posts, he wrote the following phrase:    *and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis.*

Accept for the fact that the phrase is poorly expressed, I interpreted it the first time relative to my observation to which it made some sense per the actual mathematics.  I didn't think it polite or necessary to point out the grammatical issues with the phrase.  However, its expression in his recent post in response to a similar expression of my observation, albeit, in a different context, doesn't seem to follow at all.  Hence, I need clarification.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" May Be "
> 
> * Working On **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophical monism, right?
> Following the order of the discourse, the above alludes to the countably infinite set of natural/counting numbers, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unitary matrix - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In linear algebra, a complex square matrix U is *unitary* if its conjugate transpose U* is also its inverse, that is, if_
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where __*I is the identity matrix.*_
> 
> _In physics, especially in quantum mechanics, the Hermitian adjoint of a matrix is denoted by a dagger (†) and the equation above becomes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real analogue of a unitary matrix is an orthogonal matrix. Unitary matrices have significant importance in quantum mechanics because they preserve norms, and thus, probability amplitudes._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Orthogonal matrix - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** Curious Preferences Through Direct Or Indirect Observation **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the above, but I'm not sure I follow you below.  Given the order of discourse, I wrote:
> Then you wrote:
> Again, assuming I understand what you're getting at, my response would be that the eternal existent could not be either a physical composite nor a qualitatively divisible being, but would necessarily be a comprehensively self-subsistent whole entailing all attributes of greatness and perfection at once!  In other words, for example, humanity's set of knowledge is an aggregate.  God understands all things at once in a comprehensively indivisible cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To allude that gawd understands all things is often related that gawd is intuitive to mammon ; and , an equivalent parallel scheme in science of nature is that existence is intuitive by induction and deduction from an a'priori basis .
> 
> ** Information From Data Provided As Is **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state or quality of infinitude pertains to a physical magnitude with no limit, which is an absurdity, or to a conceptual magnitude with no limit, the latter being _the mathematical concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate quantity or value_, which only exists in minds as an idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements , and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Action at a distance - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** Depends On Which We Mean To Validate With Certainty Rite Or Write **
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> Fair enough, but _proof_ in what sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements, *and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?  Relevance?
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . gawd is intuitive to mammon . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Depends On Which We Mean To Validate With Certainty Rite Or Write *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Say what?
> 
> Moving on. . . .
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, after a fashion, namely, in the revelational sense regarding the existential necessity of the eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> *
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Proof Must Be Falsifiable *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The _a priori_ apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof?  That's weird.
Click to expand...

"The _a priori_ apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof? That's weird."

It means the _a priori_ YEC'ist claim "... because I say so" is meaningless.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It could be poison.  *
> 
> A GMO could be poison and no one noticed while they were developing it? LOL!
> 
> *Monsanto makes Roundup.*
> 
> You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  I think most of know that.  Duh.
> 
> What's interesting is you mention seed.  What organic farmers want are plants and trees, but also have them bear seeds or fruit.
> 
> On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds?  Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds? Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit? *
> 
> Usually, with a few exceptions.
Click to expand...


What I hear is the genetic modification makes it sterile.  One can't use it for replanting.

The farmers have to buys seeds from Monsanto for the next crop.

Also, farmed salmon are sterile.

Has your penis fallen off yet?


----------



## Ringtone

*


Monk-Eye said:



			* Proof Must Be Falsifiable *
		
Click to expand...

*
The _a priori_ apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof?  That's weird.

*EDIT:  POST #692.*

For the sake of clarity, the above should probably read:  "The _a priori_ apprehension regarding the necessity of an eternal existent requires a proof?  That's weird."


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would people stop buying the product if genetic engineering is safe?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that is because i have called it irrational four times. In posts. Posted directly to you.
> 
> Why are you like this?
Click to expand...


I am pointing out the GMO cos do not embrace their opportunity.  They are fighting and paying big money to hide the benefits.  Even ReinyDays isn't shouting to explain its benefits after asking me the difference between organic which uses milder pesticides and GMO farming.

OTOH, I hear about non-GMO foods all the time for it being healthy and tasting good and look for their logos on products.  Today, the government enforced genetically engineered label looks foreboding.  

Furthermore, eating GMO fast foods from Mickey D's or Kentucky Fried iguanas isn't exactly health foods and can cause obesity.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> "The _a priori_ apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof? That's weird."
> 
> It means the _a priori_ YEC'ist claim "... because I say so" is meaningless.





So existence just popped into existence out of an ontological nothingness, that is to say, caused itself to exist before it existed, eh?

Did you go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall again?  What did she give you?  Shrooms?  LSD?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It could be poison.  *
> 
> A GMO could be poison and no one noticed while they were developing it? LOL!
> 
> *Monsanto makes Roundup.*
> 
> You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  I think most of know that.  Duh.
> 
> What's interesting is you mention seed.  What organic farmers want are plants and trees, but also have them bear seeds or fruit.
> 
> On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds?  Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *On the GMO side, what happens after the scientists genetically modify the plants, trees, or seeds? Do the GMO plants and trees bear seeds or fruit? *
> 
> Usually, with a few exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I hear is the genetic modification makes it sterile.  One can't use it for replanting.
> 
> The farmers have to buys seeds from Monsanto for the next crop.
> 
> Also, farmed salmon are sterile.
> 
> Has your penis fallen off yet?
Click to expand...


*What I hear is the genetic modification *[Which one? There are many.] *makes it sterile. One can't use it for replanting. *

In some cases, that is correct. In most, it isn't.

*The farmers have to buys seeds from Monsanto for the next crop.*

That's part of the contract they sign, not because the seeds are sterile.

*Also, farmed salmon are sterile.*

So don't eat them, I don't.

*Has your penis fallen off yet?*

You're stroking yourself right now, aren't you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would people stop buying the product if genetic engineering is safe?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that is because i have called it irrational four times. In posts. Posted directly to you.
> 
> Why are you like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pointing out the GMO cos do not embrace their opportunity.  They are fighting and paying big money to hide the benefits.  Even ReinyDays isn't shouting to explain its benefits after asking me the difference between organic which uses milder pesticides and GMO farming.
> 
> OTOH, I hear about non-GMO foods all the time for it being healthy and tasting good and look for their logos on products.  Today, the government enforced genetically engineered label looks foreboding.
> 
> Furthermore, eating GMO fast foods from Mickey D's or Kentucky Fried iguanas isn't exactly health foods and can cause obesity.
Click to expand...

*
 They are fighting and paying big money to hide the benefits.  *

You're mistaken.
They advertise the benefits of their seeds to their customers, the farmers.

*Furthermore, eating GMO fast foods from Mickey D's or Kentucky Fried iguanas isn't exactly health foods and can cause obesity.*

The fat content and high calorie count is to blame, not the gene that resists Roundup.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I am pointing out the GMO cos do not embrace their opportunity.


The opportunity to lose money because of irrational people? Uh...


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I am pointing out the GMO cos do not embrace their opportunity.  They are fighting and paying big money to hide the benefits.  Even ReinyDays isn't shouting to explain its benefits after asking me the difference between organic which uses milder pesticides and GMO farming.



Explain something to you? ... I'd rather weasels would eat the eyes out of my skull ... to be honest ...

The FDA regulates food for human consumption ... there's clear and convincing evidence that the GMO foods we find in our supermarkets are as safe as any non-GMO food ... maybe even safer since less pesticides are used on the GMO varieties ... I grow a garden every year using certified P1 seeds when I can, F1 when I can't ... strictly organic ... but not a lot ...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible.  See OP again and see Ding's stance.  We are not the same person, dummy.  I told you that before.
> 
> Does that answer your question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never asked you before, Dummy.
> 
> And if you don't believe that evolution is possible, you're as dumb as a sack of rocks. And if you don't believe that evolution is possible, but some has just been around since year dot, then you are even dumber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You repeatedly implied that Ding and I are the same person on another thread and on this one.  Shut up, liar.
> 
> As for your failure to grasp or directly address the argument in the OP regarding evodelusion's underderlying, metaphysical apriority, you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
Click to expand...


There is no “underderlying, metaphysical apriority” connected with evolution.

Everyone gets it. You’re repulsed by science and knowledge because those elements are a direct challenge to your YEC’ist beliefs.


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your failure to grasp or directly address the argument in the OP regarding evodelusion's underderlying, metaphysical apriority, you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no “underderlying, metaphysical apriority” connected with evolution.
Click to expand...


Metaphysics is pseudo-science ... some New Age attempt to reconcile religion and science ... we're still waiting for your mathematical challenge promised in the OP ... so far, all we've got is a bizarre twist that bifurcates infinity ... such nonsense ... pseudo-mathematics ... all the while lapping up GMO food like a hypocrite ...

You still haven't stated the mistake in evolutionary thought ... if you think there is one, then explain it ...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no “underderlying, metaphysical apriority” connected with evolution.
> 
> Everyone gets it. You’re repulsed by science and knowledge because those elements are a direct challenge to your YEC’ist beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 463459
> Hollie
Click to expand...

I see you’re back to empty cutting and pasting.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Monsanto makes Roundup.*
> 
> You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?



Um... you didn't know that Monsanto/Bayer was sued for it causing cancer and paid $10 billion out for it.

Thus, could Monsanto pay even more out if their GMO seed causes cancer or sterility in other seeds.  I think the corporation bought the two largest seed cos in the world to dominate the seed market.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What I hear is the genetic modification *[Which one? There are many.] *makes it sterile. One can't use it for replanting. *
> 
> In some cases, that is correct. In most, it isn't.
> 
> *The farmers have to buys seeds from Monsanto for the next crop.*
> 
> That's part of the contract they sign, not because the seeds are sterile.
> 
> *Also, farmed salmon are sterile.*
> 
> So don't eat them, I don't.
> 
> *Has your penis fallen off yet?*
> 
> You're stroking yourself right now, aren't you?



Which seeds are not sterile?  I heard all of them are.  Anyway, I think it's why Monsanto has practically become a monopoly in the seed market and doesn't want to advertise.  The farmers are upset at them having to buy seeds from them year after year.

Anyway, you don't sound very forthcoming with your answers as farmers are upset and fish, game, and wildlife people are upset if farmed salmon get out and ruin the natural salmon population.  Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.

Will there be another huge lawsuit over the seeds and sterile salmon?  I think so, especially if the governments force the labeling of GMO foods and ingredients.  I'll be on the lookout for it and more news over genetically engineered foods.

Usually, if a food is safe, then the cos try to alleviate the fear and market the benefits of the seed or genetically modified product.  Let's just say there are dangers.

I think I was able to find why the GMO cos aren't alleviating the public's fears and why Fort Fun Indiana and you are way too defensive over the topic instead of showing evolutionary foods like GMO foods, feed, animals, seeds, etc are beneficial.

I think all I did was ask questions to learn about evolutionary farming techniques and products, but got more than what I bargained for.  I think my intuition  was right in buying and eating non-GMO foods whenever possible.  I will be even more careful in buying non-GMO products and it's all because of you and Fort Fun Indiana's answers and attitude.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I think I was able to find why the GMO cos aren't alleviating the public's fears


And if it is any other reason but, "They fear irrational people will stop buying their products", then you are a fool. 

But it is pretty hilarious to watch you dance from one weak talking point to the other without evidence, while calling people defensive. James, i think most of your posts are designed to fool yourself.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> all the while lapping up GMO food like a hypocrite



Does scarfing GMO foods make one a hypocrite?  Earlier. it was stated that one couldn't avoid it.

If it was me who did that after what I said here, then I admit that I would be a hypocrite (unless I didn't know it was part of an ingredient or just didn't know).  I'm for GMO foods labeling now from what I discovered about the bioengineered foods.  All I can think of is if the dangers prove to be true or come to fruition, then there would be one of the largest law suits in the world.  What would be a hoot if Monsanto and the other cos paid out big bucks again for it being cancer causing like what happened with Roundup.  It's the only thing I bought from the evolutionary GMO folks here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Monsanto makes Roundup.*
> 
> You know Roundup, a weedkiller, is different than a seed, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um... you didn't know that Monsanto/Bayer was sued for it causing cancer and paid $10 billion out for it.
> 
> Thus, could Monsanto pay even more out if their GMO seed causes cancer or sterility in other seeds.  I think the corporation bought the two largest seed cos in the world to dominate the seed market.
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What I hear is the genetic modification *[Which one? There are many.] *makes it sterile. One can't use it for replanting. *
> 
> In some cases, that is correct. In most, it isn't.
> 
> *The farmers have to buys seeds from Monsanto for the next crop.*
> 
> That's part of the contract they sign, not because the seeds are sterile.
> 
> *Also, farmed salmon are sterile.*
> 
> So don't eat them, I don't.
> 
> *Has your penis fallen off yet?*
> 
> You're stroking yourself right now, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which seeds are not sterile?  I heard all of them are.  Anyway, I think it's why Monsanto has practically become a monopoly in the seed market and doesn't want to advertise.  The farmers are upset at them having to buy seeds from them year after year.
> 
> Anyway, you don't sound very forthcoming with your answers as farmers are upset and fish, game, and wildlife people are upset if farmed salmon get out and ruin the natural salmon population.  Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.
> 
> Will there be another huge lawsuit over the seeds and sterile salmon?  I think so, especially if the governments force the labeling of GMO foods and ingredients.  I'll be on the lookout for it and more news over genetically engineered foods.
> 
> Usually, if a food is safe, then the cos try to alleviate the fear and market the benefits of the seed or genetically modified product.  Let's just say there are dangers.
> 
> I think I was able to find why the GMO cos aren't alleviating the public's fears and why Fort Fun Indiana and you are way too defensive over the topic instead of showing evolutionary foods like GMO foods, feed, animals, seeds, etc are beneficial.
> 
> I think all I did was ask questions to learn about evolutionary farming techniques and products, but got more than what I bargained for.  I think my intuition  was right in buying and eating non-GMO foods whenever possible.  I will be even more careful in buying non-GMO products and it's all because of you and Fort Fun Indiana's answers and attitude.
Click to expand...


*Um... you didn't know that Monsanto/Bayer was sued for it causing cancer *

There are lots of junk lawsuits out there.
*
Which seeds are not sterile? *

Most of them.
*
I heard all of them are. *

You heard wrong. If you find a list, I'll be happy to look at it.

*The farmers are upset at them having to buy seeds from them year after year.*

If you don't want to use their higher yield, pest resistant seeds, don't buy them. But no cheating!

*Anyway, you don't sound very forthcoming with your answers as farmers are upset and fish, game, and wildlife people are upset if farmed salmon get out and ruin the natural salmon population.  Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.*

Where wasn't I forthcoming? Yes, escaped farmed salmon are an issue. 
You'll have to explain why sterile seeds are an issue.

*Usually, if a food is safe, then the cos try to alleviate the fear and market the benefits of the seed or genetically modified product. *

I already told you, the seed companies do advertise the benefits, to the farmers.

*you are way too defensive over the topic instead of showing evolutionary foods like GMO foods, feed, animals, seeds, etc are beneficial.*

I don't care if you eat GMO or overpay to avoid GMO. Feel free.

* I think my intuition was right in buying and eating non-GMO *

_ a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning_

I'd never accuse you of conscious reasoning when it comes to GMOs.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no “underderlying, metaphysical apriority” connected with evolution.
> 
> Everyone gets it. You’re repulsed by science and knowledge because those elements are a direct challenge to your YEC’ist beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 463459
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you’re back to empty cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The YEC’ists are utterly predictable. They will press the claim that biological evolution is a “metaphysic” equivalent to a religion. Metaphysics comes in three main flavors: _philosophical systems,_ _ideologies _and _religions._ In their theologies. religions attempt to create philosophical structures. You might have noticed that science is not included in metaphysics. This should help you understand that metaphysics is aligned with the development of competing philosophical or religious perspectives, not science investigation. The plethora of manmade gods and the mutually incompatible forms of worship, the various humans and animals available to be offered in sacrifice to worship to those gods should give you a clue as to some elements that differentiate metaphysics from science.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Yeah ... *Monk-Eye* knows math ... over my pay-grade but sounds correct ... we both should think of his posts as learning opportunities ...



*Edit:  Post #693.*

Should read:  _except_, not _accept_.  LOL!  And of course the interrogative in the above should read:  _It sounds correct to you, eh?, _not_ It sounds, correct to you, eh?  _The comma after _sounds_ is unnecessary.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> What would be a hoot if Monsanto and the other cos paid out big bucks again for it being cancer causing like what happened with Roundup. I


So you think it would be a "hoot" if a bunch of people caught cancer, so you could be right for all the wrong reasons that one time you were pulling stuff out of your ass on a message board.

How fucking nauseating of you.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The YEC’ists are utterly predictable. They will press the claim that biological evolution is a “metaphysic” equivalent to a religion. Metaphysics comes in three main flavors: _philosophical systems,_ _ideologies _and _religions._ In their theologies. religions attempt to create philosophical structures. You might have noticed that science is not included in metaphysics. This should help you understand that metaphysics is aligned with the development of competing philosophical or religious perspectives, not science investigation. The plethora of manmade gods and the mutually incompatible forms of worship, the various humans and animals available to be offered in sacrifice to worship to those gods should give you a clue as to some elements that differentiate metaphysics from science.
Click to expand...

The poor dear. Crushed his world.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The YEC’ists are utterly predictable. They will press the claim that biological evolution is a “metaphysic” equivalent to a religion. Metaphysics comes in three main flavors: _philosophical systems,_ _ideologies _and _religions._ In their theologies. religions attempt to create philosophical structures. You might have noticed that science is not included in metaphysics. This should help you understand that metaphysics is aligned with the development of competing philosophical or religious perspectives, not science investigation. The plethora of manmade gods and the mutually incompatible forms of worship, the various humans and animals available to be offered in sacrifice to worship to those gods should give you a clue as to some elements that differentiate metaphysics from science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The poor dear. Crushed his world.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It's so bad, he's cowering.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so bad, he's cowering.
Click to expand...

While knowledge advances, the YEC’ists remain glued to the Cartoon Network.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so bad, he's cowering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While knowledge advances, the YEC’ists remain glued to the Cartoon Network.
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice that you're repeating yourself.  It's almost as if you're trolling the thread.  That's weird.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> I can't help but notice that you're repeating yourself.  It's almost as if you're trolling the thread.  That's weird.



Cool ... your emergency inhaler is working and you can post in more than just cartoons ... we were getting worried ...


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Um... you didn't know that Monsanto/Bayer was sued for it causing cancer *
> 
> There are lots of junk lawsuits out there.



The opposition won.  $10.8 billion payout isn't junk.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Which seeds are not sterile? *
> 
> Most of them.



Got a link?  I'd like to know the type of seeds.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I heard all of them are. *
> 
> You heard wrong. If you find a list, I'll be happy to look at it.



That answers my previous question.  When I find the list, then I'll be able to do more research.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Anyway, you don't sound very forthcoming with your answers as farmers are upset and fish, game, and wildlife people are upset if farmed salmon get out and ruin the natural salmon population. Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.*
> 
> Where wasn't I forthcoming? Yes, escaped farmed salmon are an issue.
> You'll have to explain why sterile seeds are an issue.



The sterile GMO pollen can be carried by wind or insects to deposit onto non-GMO farmland.  Monsanto/Bayer knows about this and sued the non-GMO farmers for growing GMO foods without paying the technology fees (before their patent expired; now there are generic GMO seeds).

The non-GMO farmers countersued, but Bayer/Monsanto won the case.  However, the farmer didn't have to pay them anything.  Interesting case.

I found a partial list of what Bayer/Monsanto sued over -- "corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others."

BTW, I'm supposed to tell you that, "And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit for food." Genesis 1:26

Also, Satan is very unforgiving.  What does it mean?  I dunno.  Maybe has something to with eating GMO foods.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Usually, if a food is safe, then the cos try to alleviate the fear and market the benefits of the seed or genetically modified product.*
> 
> I already told you, the seed companies do advertise the benefits, to the farmers.



I wish you provide an ad, article, or something.

All I get are the opposition -- ‘Buy It or Else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s Strategy to Force Farmers to Buy GMO Seeds and Pesticides • Children's Health Defense.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I think my intuition was right in buying and eating non-GMO *
> 
> _ a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning_
> 
> I'd never accuse you of conscious reasoning when it comes to GMOs.



Heh.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be a hoot if Monsanto and the other cos paid out big bucks again for it being cancer causing like what happened with Roundup. I
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it would be a "hoot" if a bunch of people caught cancer, so you could be right for all the wrong reasons that one time you were pulling stuff out of your ass on a message board.
> 
> How fucking nauseating of you.
Click to expand...


You don't what _hoot_ means.  It means there would be a great uproar and people shouting in the streets.  You yourself said that we wouldn't know we were eating GMO foods.

How farking nauseating are you?


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Cool ... your emergency inhaler is working and you can post in more than just cartoons ... we were getting worried ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You don't what _hoot_ means. It means there would be a great uproar and people shouting in the streets


That's wrong, and you made it up. Bond, do you remember how NOT to lie?


----------



## james bond

There are still a good number of people who do not trust GMO foods.

2015








						Chapter 6: Public Opinion About Food
					

The Pew Research survey included a handful of questions related to genetically modified (GM) foods and one on the safety of foods grown with pesticides.




					www.pewresearch.org
				




2020








						About half of U.S. adults are wary of health effects of genetically modified foods, but many also see advantages
					

Views about the health effects of genetically modified foods grew more negative between 2016 and 2018 and have been steady since then.




					www.pewresearch.org


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't what _hoot_ means. It means there would be a great uproar and people shouting in the streets
> 
> 
> 
> That's wrong, and you made it up. Bond, do you remember how NOT to lie?
Click to expand...


You don't know how to use a dictionary.

"to cry out or shout, especially in disapproval or derision."









						Definition of hoot | Dictionary.com
					

Hoot definition, to cry out or shout, especially in disapproval or derision. See more.




					www.dictionary.com


----------



## james bond

Is this the connection between GMO foods and cancer?  The use of Roundup?

We know that Bayer/Monsanto already had to pay out huge fines for Roundup causing cancer.

Roundup ready GMO crops have to use Roundup to kill the weeds.

"*Genetically Modified Food*
Roundup Ready crops are crops genetically modified to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. Roundup is the brand-name of a herbicide produced by Monsanto. Its active ingredient glyphosate was patented in the 1970s. Roundup is widely used by both people in their backyards and farmers in their fields. Roundup Ready plants are resistant to Roundup, so farmers that plant these seeds must use Roundup to keep other weeds from growing in their fields.

The first Roundup Ready crops were developed in 1996, with the introduction of genetically modified soybeans that are resistant to Roundup. These crops were developed to help farmers control weeds. Because the new crops are resistant to Roundup, the herbicide can be used in the fields to eliminate unwanted foliage. Current Roundup Ready crops include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum, with wheat under development."





__





						The Roundup Ready Controversy
					





					web.mit.edu


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You don't know how to use a dictionary.
> 
> "to cry out or shout, especially in disapproval or derision."


Sorry weasel...that's a verb. Look up the noun version. You know what you meant. And like you always do, you try to lie to weasel out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Um... you didn't know that Monsanto/Bayer was sued for it causing cancer *
> 
> There are lots of junk lawsuits out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The opposition won.  $10.8 billion payout isn't junk.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Which seeds are not sterile? *
> 
> Most of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link?  I'd like to know the type of seeds.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I heard all of them are. *
> 
> You heard wrong. If you find a list, I'll be happy to look at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That answers my previous question.  When I find the list, then I'll be able to do more research.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyway, you don't sound very forthcoming with your answers as farmers are upset and fish, game, and wildlife people are upset if farmed salmon get out and ruin the natural salmon population. Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.*
> 
> Where wasn't I forthcoming? Yes, escaped farmed salmon are an issue.
> You'll have to explain why sterile seeds are an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sterile GMO pollen can be carried by wind or insects to deposit onto non-GMO farmland.  Monsanto/Bayer knows about this and sued the non-GMO farmers for growing GMO foods without paying the technology fees (before their patent expired; now there are generic GMO seeds).
> 
> The non-GMO farmers countersued, but Bayer/Monsanto won the case.  However, the farmer didn't have to pay them anything.  Interesting case.
> 
> I found a partial list of what Bayer/Monsanto sued over -- "corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others."
> 
> BTW, I'm supposed to tell you that, "And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit for food." Genesis 1:26
> 
> Also, Satan is very unforgiving.  What does it mean?  I dunno.  Maybe has something to with eating GMO foods.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Usually, if a food is safe, then the cos try to alleviate the fear and market the benefits of the seed or genetically modified product.*
> 
> I already told you, the seed companies do advertise the benefits, to the farmers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you provide an ad, article, or something.
> 
> All I get are the opposition -- ‘Buy It or Else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s Strategy to Force Farmers to Buy GMO Seeds and Pesticides • Children's Health Defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think my intuition was right in buying and eating non-GMO *
> 
> _ a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning_
> 
> I'd never accuse you of conscious reasoning when it comes to GMOs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.
Click to expand...


*Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.*

You'll have to explain why sterile seeds are an issue.

*The sterile GMO pollen can be carried by wind or insects to deposit onto non-GMO farmland.*

If you're confusing seeds and pollen, you have issues.
*
I wish you provide an ad, article, or something.*

DroughtGard® Hybrids Products | Channel® Seed Brand


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> There are still a good number of people who do not trust GMO foods.



Lots of stupid people out there.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know how to use a dictionary.
> 
> "to cry out or shout, especially in disapproval or derision."
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry weasel...that's a verb. Look up the noun version. You know what you meant. And like you always do, you try to lie to weasel out.
Click to expand...


The noun is the same meaning , " a cry or shout, especially of disapproval or derision."

I think you're being too _defensive_  again even thought I agreed that GMO foods do not cause cancer.

However, we found out the GMO farmers who use Roundup Ready seeds from Bayer/Monsanto use Roundup to spray the weeds, i.e. the majority, that crop up around their GMO plants.  That could cause cancer and Bayer/Monsanto gets sued again and again.

This is what evolution by artificial selection, i.e. mutations, has led to.  I'm definitely FOR GMO foods labeling now and recommend people to not eat GMO foods because of getting Roundup buildup in your system and lymphoma  cancer.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Um... you didn't know that Monsanto/Bayer was sued for it causing cancer *
> 
> There are lots of junk lawsuits out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The opposition won.  $10.8 billion payout isn't junk.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Which seeds are not sterile? *
> 
> Most of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link?  I'd like to know the type of seeds.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I heard all of them are. *
> 
> You heard wrong. If you find a list, I'll be happy to look at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That answers my previous question.  When I find the list, then I'll be able to do more research.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyway, you don't sound very forthcoming with your answers as farmers are upset and fish, game, and wildlife people are upset if farmed salmon get out and ruin the natural salmon population. Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.*
> 
> Where wasn't I forthcoming? Yes, escaped farmed salmon are an issue.
> You'll have to explain why sterile seeds are an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sterile GMO pollen can be carried by wind or insects to deposit onto non-GMO farmland.  Monsanto/Bayer knows about this and sued the non-GMO farmers for growing GMO foods without paying the technology fees (before their patent expired; now there are generic GMO seeds).
> 
> The non-GMO farmers countersued, but Bayer/Monsanto won the case.  However, the farmer didn't have to pay them anything.  Interesting case.
> 
> I found a partial list of what Bayer/Monsanto sued over -- "corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others."
> 
> BTW, I'm supposed to tell you that, "And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit for food." Genesis 1:26
> 
> Also, Satan is very unforgiving.  What does it mean?  I dunno.  Maybe has something to with eating GMO foods.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Usually, if a food is safe, then the cos try to alleviate the fear and market the benefits of the seed or genetically modified product.*
> 
> I already told you, the seed companies do advertise the benefits, to the farmers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you provide an ad, article, or something.
> 
> All I get are the opposition -- ‘Buy It or Else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s Strategy to Force Farmers to Buy GMO Seeds and Pesticides • Children's Health Defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think my intuition was right in buying and eating non-GMO *
> 
> _ a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning_
> 
> I'd never accuse you of conscious reasoning when it comes to GMOs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.*
> 
> You'll have to explain why sterile seeds are an issue.
> 
> *The sterile GMO pollen can be carried by wind or insects to deposit onto non-GMO farmland.*
> 
> If you're confusing seeds and pollen, you have issues.
> 
> *I wish you provide an ad, article, or something.*
> 
> DroughtGard® Hybrids Products | Channel® Seed Brand
Click to expand...


Monsanto states both their GMO seeds and the pollen from their plants and trees blow into non-GMO lands.  You sure don't know much about farming nor understand the difference between seeds and pollen  You just admitted you have issues.  Could it be due to eating too much GMO foods?

Now, you bring up hybrid products.  How is that GMO seeds and what is the difference?  Are the majority of GMO seeds Roundup ready seeds?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are still a good number of people who do not trust GMO foods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of stupid people out there.
Click to expand...


They're the smart ones avoiding GMO foods with Roundup on it and the possibility of getting lymphoma cancer.  And now other cancers.  Farmers and consumers can sue -- Roundup Cancer Lawsuit | 2020 Updates & Settlements.

Despite the lawsuits, Bayer bought Monsanto.


*Roundup Weedkiller Is Blamed for Cancers, but Farmers Say It’s Not Going Away*
After a blockbuster acquisition, Bayer may lose billions over claims that the No. 1 agricultural chemical is unsafe. But its market niche seems secure.










						Roundup Weedkiller Is Blamed for Cancers, but Farmers Say It’s Not Going Away (Published 2019)
					

After a blockbuster acquisition, Bayer may lose billions over claims that the No. 1 agricultural chemical is unsafe. But its market niche seems secure.




					www.nytimes.com
				




When will the first Roundup Ready GMO foods case happen?  During this decade?

*How Much Toxic Roundup Are You Eating?*
Plus six additional disgusting facts about the popular weed killer.





__





						How Much Toxic Roundup Are You Eating?
					

Plus six additional disgusting facts about the popular weed killer.




					www.goodhousekeeping.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Um... you didn't know that Monsanto/Bayer was sued for it causing cancer *
> 
> There are lots of junk lawsuits out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The opposition won.  $10.8 billion payout isn't junk.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Which seeds are not sterile? *
> 
> Most of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link?  I'd like to know the type of seeds.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I heard all of them are. *
> 
> You heard wrong. If you find a list, I'll be happy to look at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That answers my previous question.  When I find the list, then I'll be able to do more research.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyway, you don't sound very forthcoming with your answers as farmers are upset and fish, game, and wildlife people are upset if farmed salmon get out and ruin the natural salmon population. Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.*
> 
> Where wasn't I forthcoming? Yes, escaped farmed salmon are an issue.
> You'll have to explain why sterile seeds are an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sterile GMO pollen can be carried by wind or insects to deposit onto non-GMO farmland.  Monsanto/Bayer knows about this and sued the non-GMO farmers for growing GMO foods without paying the technology fees (before their patent expired; now there are generic GMO seeds).
> 
> The non-GMO farmers countersued, but Bayer/Monsanto won the case.  However, the farmer didn't have to pay them anything.  Interesting case.
> 
> I found a partial list of what Bayer/Monsanto sued over -- "corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others."
> 
> BTW, I'm supposed to tell you that, "And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit for food." Genesis 1:26
> 
> Also, Satan is very unforgiving.  What does it mean?  I dunno.  Maybe has something to with eating GMO foods.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Usually, if a food is safe, then the cos try to alleviate the fear and market the benefits of the seed or genetically modified product.*
> 
> I already told you, the seed companies do advertise the benefits, to the farmers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you provide an ad, article, or something.
> 
> All I get are the opposition -- ‘Buy It or Else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s Strategy to Force Farmers to Buy GMO Seeds and Pesticides • Children's Health Defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think my intuition was right in buying and eating non-GMO *
> 
> _ a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning_
> 
> I'd never accuse you of conscious reasoning when it comes to GMOs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.*
> 
> You'll have to explain why sterile seeds are an issue.
> 
> *The sterile GMO pollen can be carried by wind or insects to deposit onto non-GMO farmland.*
> 
> If you're confusing seeds and pollen, you have issues.
> 
> *I wish you provide an ad, article, or something.*
> 
> DroughtGard® Hybrids Products | Channel® Seed Brand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monsanto states both their GMO seeds and the pollen from their plants and trees blow into non-GMO lands.  You sure don't know much about farming nor understand the difference between seeds and pollen  You just admitted you have issues.  Could it be due to eating too much GMO foods?
> 
> You sure don't know much about farming nor understand the difference between seeds and pollen   How is that GMO seeds and what is the difference?  Are the majority of GMO seeds Roundup ready seeds?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are still a good number of people who do not trust GMO foods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of stupid people out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're the smart ones avoiding GMO foods with Roundup on it and the possibility of getting lymphoma cancer.  And now other cancers.  Farmers and consumers can sue -- Roundup Cancer Lawsuit | 2020 Updates & Settlements.
> 
> Despite the lawsuits, Bayer bought Monsanto.
> 
> 
> *Roundup Weedkiller Is Blamed for Cancers, but Farmers Say It’s Not Going Away*
> After a blockbuster acquisition, Bayer may lose billions over claims that the No. 1 agricultural chemical is unsafe. But its market niche seems secure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roundup Weedkiller Is Blamed for Cancers, but Farmers Say It’s Not Going Away (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> After a blockbuster acquisition, Bayer may lose billions over claims that the No. 1 agricultural chemical is unsafe. But its market niche seems secure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When will the first Roundup Ready GMO foods case happen?  During this decade?
> 
> *How Much Toxic Roundup Are You Eating?*
> Plus six additional disgusting facts about the popular weed killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Much Toxic Roundup Are You Eating?
> 
> 
> Plus six additional disgusting facts about the popular weed killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.goodhousekeeping.com
Click to expand...


*Monsanto states both their GMO seeds and the pollen from their plants and trees blow into non-GMO lands.  *

Thank goodness you've figured out that sterile seeds blowing onto neighboring farms isn't an issue.

*You sure don't know much about farming nor understand the difference between seeds and pollen *

You're basing that on my pointing out your confusion. That's funny.

*Now, you bring up hybrid products. How is that GMO seeds and what is the difference?  *

It's a hybrid which combines genes that help resist insects with genes to tolerate herbicides. 

Here's some more........ Products | Bayer Crop Science


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The noun is the same meaning


False. You did not mean someone would make a hooting sound. You have zero shame. Ya fraud.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Um... you didn't know that Monsanto/Bayer was sued for it causing cancer *
> 
> There are lots of junk lawsuits out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The opposition won.  $10.8 billion payout isn't junk.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Which seeds are not sterile? *
> 
> Most of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link?  I'd like to know the type of seeds.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I heard all of them are. *
> 
> You heard wrong. If you find a list, I'll be happy to look at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That answers my previous question.  When I find the list, then I'll be able to do more research.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyway, you don't sound very forthcoming with your answers as farmers are upset and fish, game, and wildlife people are upset if farmed salmon get out and ruin the natural salmon population. Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.*
> 
> Where wasn't I forthcoming? Yes, escaped farmed salmon are an issue.
> You'll have to explain why sterile seeds are an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sterile GMO pollen can be carried by wind or insects to deposit onto non-GMO farmland.  Monsanto/Bayer knows about this and sued the non-GMO farmers for growing GMO foods without paying the technology fees (before their patent expired; now there are generic GMO seeds).
> 
> The non-GMO farmers countersued, but Bayer/Monsanto won the case.  However, the farmer didn't have to pay them anything.  Interesting case.
> 
> I found a partial list of what Bayer/Monsanto sued over -- "corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others."
> 
> BTW, I'm supposed to tell you that, "And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit for food." Genesis 1:26
> 
> Also, Satan is very unforgiving.  What does it mean?  I dunno.  Maybe has something to with eating GMO foods.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Usually, if a food is safe, then the cos try to alleviate the fear and market the benefits of the seed or genetically modified product.*
> 
> I already told you, the seed companies do advertise the benefits, to the farmers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you provide an ad, article, or something.
> 
> All I get are the opposition -- ‘Buy It or Else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s Strategy to Force Farmers to Buy GMO Seeds and Pesticides • Children's Health Defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think my intuition was right in buying and eating non-GMO *
> 
> _ a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning_
> 
> I'd never accuse you of conscious reasoning when it comes to GMOs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Same with the sterile seeds blowing into other farmers lands.*
> 
> You'll have to explain why sterile seeds are an issue.
> 
> *The sterile GMO pollen can be carried by wind or insects to deposit onto non-GMO farmland.*
> 
> If you're confusing seeds and pollen, you have issues.
> 
> *I wish you provide an ad, article, or something.*
> 
> DroughtGard® Hybrids Products | Channel® Seed Brand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monsanto states both their GMO seeds and the pollen from their plants and trees blow into non-GMO lands.  You sure don't know much about farming nor understand the difference between seeds and pollen  You just admitted you have issues.  Could it be due to eating too much GMO foods?
> 
> You sure don't know much about farming nor understand the difference between seeds and pollen   How is that GMO seeds and what is the difference?  Are the majority of GMO seeds Roundup ready seeds?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are still a good number of people who do not trust GMO foods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of stupid people out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're the smart ones avoiding GMO foods with Roundup on it and the possibility of getting lymphoma cancer.  And now other cancers.  Farmers and consumers can sue -- Roundup Cancer Lawsuit | 2020 Updates & Settlements.
> 
> Despite the lawsuits, Bayer bought Monsanto.
> 
> 
> *Roundup Weedkiller Is Blamed for Cancers, but Farmers Say It’s Not Going Away*
> After a blockbuster acquisition, Bayer may lose billions over claims that the No. 1 agricultural chemical is unsafe. But its market niche seems secure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roundup Weedkiller Is Blamed for Cancers, but Farmers Say It’s Not Going Away (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> After a blockbuster acquisition, Bayer may lose billions over claims that the No. 1 agricultural chemical is unsafe. But its market niche seems secure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When will the first Roundup Ready GMO foods case happen?  During this decade?
> 
> *How Much Toxic Roundup Are You Eating?*
> Plus six additional disgusting facts about the popular weed killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Much Toxic Roundup Are You Eating?
> 
> 
> Plus six additional disgusting facts about the popular weed killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.goodhousekeeping.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Monsanto states both their GMO seeds and the pollen from their plants and trees blow into non-GMO lands.  *
> 
> Thank goodness you've figured out that sterile seeds blowing onto neighboring farms isn't an issue.
> 
> *You sure don't know much about farming nor understand the difference between seeds and pollen *
> 
> You're basing that on my pointing out your confusion. That's funny.
> 
> *Now, you bring up hybrid products. How is that GMO seeds and what is the difference?  *
> 
> It's a hybrid which combines genes that help resist insects with genes to tolerate herbicides.
> 
> Here's some more........ Products | Bayer Crop Science
Click to expand...


You ask me questions, so I provide the answers, but you miss the main point.  You're the one who said it is marketed to farmers, not consumers. The non-GMO farmers are countersuing and winning.  The GMO seeds and pollen would ruin their crops as they obviously do not want it.  It takes a lot of work to get the non-GMO label.  Also, the consumers who end up with lymphoma and other cancers are suing and winning.  It's not a benefit for technology fees as Bayer/Monsanto thinks (except for the GMO farmers).

I'm still appalled as you're supposed to know about GMO seeds and all.  Thus, have you evolved at all?  It doesn't sound like it.

Bottom line is you'll continue to eat GMO foods based on your atheist religion and I'll eat non-GMO foods and try not to eat GMO foods.  I think I will be more of an advocate for GMO food labeling as genetically engineered or bioengineered and being against Roundup Ready seeds and Roundup use on our foods.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Bottom line is you'll continue to eat GMO foods based on your atheist religion


This makes no sense on any level. You are losing your mind.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is you'll continue to eat GMO foods based on your atheist religion
> 
> 
> 
> This makes no sense on any level. You are losing your mind.
Click to expand...


I'm fine with _you_ eating GMO foods.  When more foods are labeled genetically engineered or bioengineered, then you will know you're getting your fill of daily nutrition based on atheism and evolutionary thinking lol.  You believe it's safe despite the Roundup spraying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> You ask me questions, so I provide the answers, but you miss the main point. You're the one who said it is marketed to farmers, not consumers. The non-GMO farmers are countersuing and winning. The GMO seeds and pollen would ruin their crops as they obviously do not want it. It takes a lot of work to get the non-GMO label. Also, the consumers who end up with lymphoma and other cancers are suing and winning. It's not a benefit for technology fees as Bayer/Monsanto thinks (except for the GMO farmers).
> 
> I'm still appalled as you're supposed to know about GMO seeds and all. Thus, have you evolved at all? It doesn't sound like it.
> 
> Bottom line is you'll continue to eat GMO foods based on your atheist religion and I'll eat non-GMO foods and try not to eat GMO foods. I think I will be more of an advocate for GMO food labeling as genetically engineered or bioengineered and being against Roundup Ready seeds and Roundup use on our foods.



*You're the one who said it is marketed to farmers, not consumers.*

Correct, there is no reason for Bayer to market GMO seeds to you or to me.

*The non-GMO farmers are countersuing and winning. *

I don't believe you.

Have you realized your sterile seed error yet?

*I'm still appalled as you're supposed to know about GMO seeds and all. *

More than you....I know, low bar.

*I'll eat non-GMO foods and try not to eat GMO foods.*

Plenty of suckers like you out there who'll overpay due to ignorant hysteria.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> When more foods are labeled genetically engineered or bioengineered, then you will know you're getting your fill of daily nutrition based on atheism and evolutionary thinking


And you keep sitting there and enjoying the benefits of that thinking, in virtually every aspect of your life. We don't mind.


----------



## ReinyDays

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The non-GMO farmers are countersuing and winning. *
> I don't believe you.



Yeah ... do you have a judicial citation? ... I know some farmers have been successfully sued for copyright infringement by Monsanto ... this is in cases where a neighbor farmer selectively bred for the Monsanto genetics, which is illegal ... but I've never heard of a case where a neighbor farmer successfully sued Monsanto for wind-driven pollen ... there's no "expectation" under the law that Monsanto will control this ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The non-GMO farmers are countersuing and winning. *
> I don't believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... do you have a judicial citation? ... I know some farmers have been successfully sued for copyright infringement by Monsanto ... this is in cases where a neighbor farmer selectively bred for the Monsanto genetics, which is illegal ... but I've never heard of a case where a neighbor farmer successfully sued Monsanto for wind-driven pollen ... there's no "expectation" under the law that Monsanto will control this ...
Click to expand...


You should ask your fellow GMO foods supporter.  I'm the one who doesn't want to die of cancer from eating Roundup nor have my future generations become sterile.

I think what Bayer/Monsanto (interesting that a German corp bought out Monsanto) only sues those with an agreement with them for buying the GMO seeds and reuse it.  

Well, the wind blown seeds and pollen has to do with patent infringement and Monsanto controls this (now there are genetic GMO seeds), but they haven't been able to collect over it against the non-GMO farmers.  It's supposed to be on their website.  As for the countersuits, I think eventually one will win if they have to use Roundup to get rid of the weeds.  It's a matter of how much GMO seeds and pollen blew over.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> When more foods are labeled genetically engineered or bioengineered, then you will know you're getting your fill of daily nutrition based on atheism and evolutionary thinking
> 
> 
> 
> And you keep sitting there and enjoying the benefits of that thinking, in virtually every aspect of your life. We don't mind.
Click to expand...


Sure, and I get to enjoy the benefits of non-GMO foods and organic foods (not that contaminated) and not have to worry about eating Roundup and have my future generation become sterile or worse.  If you want to call non-GMO and organic foods God's recommended food, i.e. religious, then it is fine with me.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Somnambulism Inn Finite Being Becoming Geometry Bias Transition  "

* Relevance To Conjecture When Offering Characteristics Of A Monad In Monism **


Ringtone said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements, *and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis*.
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?  Relevance?
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, after a fashion, namely, in the revelational sense regarding the existential necessity of the eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> ** Proof Must Be Falsifiable **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The _a priori_ apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof?  That's weird.
Click to expand...

A theory of monism may suppose that an identity set of identity elements can be simultaneously both singular and infinite and anywhere in between .

An a'priori theory for monism would presume that a monad could be identified and its qualities assessed -- Monad (philosophy) -- .

As a monad relates with mathematics ,  mathematicians in antiquity sought to identify a monad , and pythagoreans forfeit the premise by conclusions from proofs in Commensurability (mathematics) / .

Irrespective of whether there is or are not an infinitesimal identity element basis of nature termed a monad , which would one suppose a numerical value for a monad might be , would a monad be determinate as a whole number , or non determinate as an irrational number or transcendental number ?

Presuming qualities of an infinitesimal identity monad with infinitude and bias by geometry , would each infinitesimal identity monad with infinitude and bias by geometry be sapient , sentient , include introspection , omniscient , omnipresent , omnipotent ?

** Intuition Through Conscientious Objection Spirit Guides **


Ringtone said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . gawd is intuitive to mammon . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?
Click to expand...

In greco-roman antiquity , spirits were associated with smells , and also referred to as humors ; also , in greco-roman antiquity priestesses would enter the mithreaum the emit ether and prophesy - Mithraeum .





__





						Transcendental number - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_In mathematics, *a transcendental number is a number that is not algebraic*—that is, not the root of a non-zero polynomial with rational coefficients. The best known transcendental numbers are π and e.[1][2]
Though only a few classes of transcendental numbers are known, in part because it can be extremely difficult to show that a given number is transcendental, transcendental numbers are not rare. Indeed, almost all real and complex numbers are transcendental, since the algebraic numbers compose a countable set, while the set of real numbers and the set of complex numbers are both uncountable sets, and therefore larger than any countable set. *All real transcendental numbers are irrational numbers, since all rational numbers are algebraic. *The converse is not true: not all irrational numbers are transcendental. For example, *t**he square root of 2 is an irrational number, but it is not a transcendental number as it is a root of the polynomial equation x2 − 2 = 0. The golden ratio (denoted φ {\displaystyle \varphi } 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 or ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) is another irrational number that is not transcendental, as it is a root of the polynomial equation x2 − x − 1 = 0.*_





__





						Is an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence capable of changing the golden mean ?
					

" Is an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence capable of changing the golden mean ? "  * Justify Your Answer *  Why are " yes and or no " , or " yes and no " , or " yes or no " , not poll options ?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




** Legislated Laws Written By Wrights Legislated Against Individualism **


Ringtone said:


> *
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Depends On Which We Mean To Validate With Certainty Rite Or Write *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Say what?
> Moving on. . . .


It is a cliche that a golden rule is this , those who have the gold write the rule .





__





						Legal Positivism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
					





					plato.stanford.edu
				








						Legal positivism - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				









						Perspectivism - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





			https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/Perspectivism


----------



## Sunsettommy

Always amused at the intellectual babblings through "holy math" and esoteric philosophical arguments, when the wholly babble was supposed to have all the needed answer for serving a mirage god and learn how to find an empty seat in harp filled heaven.


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't what _hoot_ means. It means there would be a great uproar and people shouting in the streets
> 
> 
> 
> That's wrong, and you made it up. Bond, do you remember how NOT to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know how to use a dictionary.
> 
> "to cry out or shout, especially in disapproval or derision."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of hoot | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Hoot definition, to cry out or shout, especially in disapproval or derision. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
Click to expand...


He is not worth your time, Friend.  Even his name ("Fun") is a lie.
"Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible


----------



## james bond

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't what _hoot_ means. It means there would be a great uproar and people shouting in the streets
> 
> 
> 
> That's wrong, and you made it up. Bond, do you remember how NOT to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know how to use a dictionary.
> 
> "to cry out or shout, especially in disapproval or derision."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of hoot | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Hoot definition, to cry out or shout, especially in disapproval or derision. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not worth your time, Friend.  Even his name ("Fun") is a lie.
> "Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible
Click to expand...


Fort Unhappy Indiana.  Fort Miserable Indiana.  Fort Gloomy Indiana.  Fort Boring Indiana.  And plenty more.


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> Fort Unhappy Indiana.  Fort Miserable Indiana.  Fort Gloomy Indiana.  Fort Boring Indiana.  And plenty more.


Ignorant Fart In Indiana


----------



## Ringtone

Monk-Eye said:


> An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements, and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis.



Well, the above still strikes me as being somewhat muddled, but, presumably, you're alluding to the conceptualization of _an infinitesimal monad_ as both (1) a collectively singular set of interval elements that are infinity close (for example, the interval elements of the infinitesimal quotients in the set of 1/k + 1 . . .) or (2) as an infinite number of infinitesimal quotients tending toward zero.

*


Monk-Eye said:



			* Proof Must Be Falsifiable *
		
Click to expand...

*


Ringtone said:


> The _a priori_ apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof?  That's weird.





Monk-Eye said:


> A theory of monism may suppose that an identity set of identity elements can be simultaneously both singular and infinite and anywhere in between.



Arguably, yes.  See above.



Monk-Eye said:


> An a'priori theory for monism would presume that a monad could be identified and its qualities assessed -- Monad (philosophy) -- .
> 
> As a monad relates with mathematics, mathematicians in antiquity sought to identify a monad, and Pythagoreans forfeit the premise by conclusions from proofs in Commensurability (mathematics).



Well, as you may know, the Monad of classical theism as bottomed on Christianity is the eternally self-subsistent Trinity, wherein God the Father eternally generates God the Son, and their mutual love for one another is the Holy Spirit. (Bear in mind this has been alternately reckoned by Christian thinkers in history.) 



Monk-Eye said:


> Irrespective of whether there is or are not an infinitesimal identity element basis of nature termed a monad , which would one suppose a numerical value for a monad might be, would a monad be determinate as a whole number, or non determinate as an irrational number or transcendental number?



It could be either.



Monk-Eye said:


> Presuming qualities of an infinitesimal identity monad with infinitude and bias by geometry, would each infinitesimal identity monad with infinitude and bias by geometry be sapient, sentient, include introspection, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent?



In geometric terms of physical magnitude?  I would say _no_.

*


Monk-Eye said:



			* Intuition Through Conscientious Objection Spirit Guides *
		
Click to expand...

*


Monk-Eye said:


> Gawd is intuitive to mammon. . . .
> 
> . . . In greco-roman antiquity , spirits were associated with smells , and also referred to as humors ; also , in greco-roman antiquity priestesses would enter the mithreaum the emit ether and prophesy - Mithraeum.




Uh . . . okay.



Monk-Eye said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transcendental number - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In mathematics, *a transcendental number is a number that is not algebraic*—that is, not the root of a non-zero polynomial with rational coefficients. The best known transcendental numbers are π and e.[1][2]
> 
> Though only a few classes of transcendental numbers are known, in part because it can be extremely difficult to show that a given number is transcendental, transcendental numbers are not rare. Indeed, almost all real and complex numbers are transcendental, since the algebraic numbers compose a countable set, while the set of real numbers and the set of complex numbers are both uncountable sets, and therefore larger than any countable set. *All real transcendental numbers are irrational numbers, since all rational numbers are algebraic. *The converse is not true: not all irrational numbers are transcendental. For example, *t**he square root of 2 is an irrational number, but it is not a transcendental number as it is a root of the polynomial equation x2 − 2 = 0. The golden ratio (denoted φ {\displaystyle \varphi }
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or ϕ {\displaystyle \phi }
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) is another irrational number that is not transcendental, as it is a root of the polynomial equation x2 − x − 1 = 0.*_




Agree.  But still looking for the relevance of mathematical concepts that entail the potentially infinite and the actually infinite to (1) the logical necessity of an eternal entity of origin, (2) and the qualitatively superlative infinity of classical theism.



Monk-Eye said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence capable of changing the golden mean ?
> 
> 
> " Is an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence capable of changing the golden mean ? "  * Justify Your Answer *  Why are " yes and or no " , or " yes and no " , or " yes or no " , not poll options ?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com



God cannot be or do the impossible.  God = God.  God* ≠* Not-God.



Monk-Eye said:


> It is a cliche that a golden rule is this, those who have the gold write the rule.



I don't agree with this at all, but this obviously goes to another thread.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements, and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the above still strikes me as being somewhat muddled, but, presumably, you're alluding to the conceptualization of _an infinitesimal monad_ as both (1) a collectively singular set of interval elements that are infinity close (for example, the interval elements of the infinitesimal quotients in the set of 1/k + 1 . . .) or (2) as an infinite number of infinitesimal quotients tending toward zero.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Proof Must Be Falsifiable *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _a priori_ apprehension regarding the existential necessity of the eternal requires a proof?  That's weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> A theory of monism may suppose that an identity set of identity elements can be simultaneously both singular and infinite and anywhere in between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arguably, yes.  See above.
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> An a'priori theory for monism would presume that a monad could be identified and its qualities assessed -- Monad (philosophy) -- .
> 
> As a monad relates with mathematics, mathematicians in antiquity sought to identify a monad, and Pythagoreans forfeit the premise by conclusions from proofs in Commensurability (mathematics).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as you may know, the Monad of classical theism as bottomed on Christianity is the eternally self-subsistent Trinity, wherein God the Father eternally generates God the Son, and their mutual love for one another is the Holy Spirit. (Bear in mind this has been alternately reckoned by Christian thinkers in history.)
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrespective of whether there is or are not an infinitesimal identity element basis of nature termed a monad , which would one suppose a numerical value for a monad might be, would a monad be determinate as a whole number, or non determinate as an irrational number or transcendental number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be either.
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presuming qualities of an infinitesimal identity monad with infinitude and bias by geometry, would each infinitesimal identity monad with infinitude and bias by geometry be sapient, sentient, include introspection, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In geometric terms of physical magnitude?  I would say _no_.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Intuition Through Conscientious Objection Spirit Guides *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd is intuitive to mammon. . . .
> 
> . . . In greco-roman antiquity , spirits were associated with smells , and also referred to as humors ; also , in greco-roman antiquity priestesses would enter the mithreaum the emit ether and prophesy - Mithraeum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh . . . okay.
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transcendental number - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In mathematics, *a transcendental number is a number that is not algebraic*—that is, not the root of a non-zero polynomial with rational coefficients. The best known transcendental numbers are π and e.[1][2]
> 
> Though only a few classes of transcendental numbers are known, in part because it can be extremely difficult to show that a given number is transcendental, transcendental numbers are not rare. Indeed, almost all real and complex numbers are transcendental, since the algebraic numbers compose a countable set, while the set of real numbers and the set of complex numbers are both uncountable sets, and therefore larger than any countable set. *All real transcendental numbers are irrational numbers, since all rational numbers are algebraic. *The converse is not true: not all irrational numbers are transcendental. For example, *t**he square root of 2 is an irrational number, but it is not a transcendental number as it is a root of the polynomial equation x2 − 2 = 0. The golden ratio (denoted φ {\displaystyle \varphi }
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or ϕ {\displaystyle \phi }
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) is another irrational number that is not transcendental, as it is a root of the polynomial equation x2 − x − 1 = 0.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree.  But still looking for the relevance of mathematical concepts that entail the potentially infinite and the actually infinite to (1) the logical necessity of an eternal entity of origin, (2) and the qualitatively superlative infinity of classical theism.
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence capable of changing the golden mean ?
> 
> 
> " Is an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence capable of changing the golden mean ? "  * Justify Your Answer *  Why are " yes and or no " , or " yes and no " , or " yes or no " , not poll options ?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God cannot be or do the impossible.  God = God.  God* ≠* Not-God.
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a cliche that a golden rule is this, those who have the gold write the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with this at all, but this obviously goes to another thread.
Click to expand...


“God cannot be or do the impossible.”


Gee whiz.  You managed to remove the “omni’s” from your gods converting them back to where they came from. There actually are recognizable patterns where various religions tend to define their gods as simply grander and more powerful versions of their own political or social constructs.

We see in religions the morphing of characteristics that define the gods people invent. You need only read the OT (Hebrew scriptures stolen by christianity), and the NT to understand the morphing of the gods. Zeus was descended from earlier ancient entities, the Titans. Zeus was the son of Kronos and Rhea. Kronos was himself the child of Ouranos and Gaia. The inventors of religions tend to steal ruthlessly from earlier belief systems and earlier inventions of supernatural characters. That's evident in his formulation of christianity and not at all uncommon with other religions.

There actually are recognizable patterns where various religions tend to define their gods as simply grander and more powerful versions of their own political or social constructs you Zeus worshipping heathen, you.


----------



## Ringtone

Monk-Eye said:


> An identity set may include anywhere between a singular identity element and an infinite value of identity elements, and qualities of an identity element infinitesimal monad with infinitude are included in the analysis.



For the sake of clarity. . . .

Edit *post #745*:  "In the geometric terms of physical magnitude? _No_.  In the conceptually geometric terms of analogy? _Yes_."


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't what _hoot_ means. It means there would be a great uproar and people shouting in the streets
> 
> 
> 
> That's wrong, and you made it up. Bond, do you remember how NOT to lie?
Click to expand...


What do you think of Red Bull?  GMO drink?

It gives you wings








						Red Bull Energy Drink - Official Website
					

Welcome to the official website of Red Bull. Explore all Red Bull products and the company behind the can.




					www.redbull.com
				




Don't try at home


----------



## themirrorthief

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't what _hoot_ means. It means there would be a great uproar and people shouting in the streets
> 
> 
> 
> That's wrong, and you made it up. Bond, do you remember how NOT to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think of Red Bull?  GMO drink?
> 
> It gives you wings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red Bull Energy Drink - Official Website
> 
> 
> Welcome to the official website of Red Bull. Explore all Red Bull products and the company behind the can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.redbull.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try at home
Click to expand...

smart people who can think better than most of us gave us nuclear bombs, fake boobs, and a zillion god awful tv shows


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Sure, and I get to enjoy the benefits of non-GMO foods and organic foods (not that contaminated) and not have to worry about eating Roundup and have my future generation become sterile or worse


Your irrational fears are your problem.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and I get to enjoy the benefits of non-GMO foods and organic foods (not that contaminated) and not have to worry about eating Roundup and have my future generation become sterile or worse
> 
> 
> 
> Your irrational fears are your problem.
Click to expand...


He still thinks sterile seeds blowing into neighboring fields would be a problem.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and I get to enjoy the benefits of non-GMO foods and organic foods (not that contaminated) and not have to worry about eating Roundup and have my future generation become sterile or worse
> 
> 
> 
> Your irrational fears are your problem.
Click to expand...


Irrational?  EU countries have already banned use of Roundup.  Bayer/Monsanto's will have to comply in 2023 as Germany will follow.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and I get to enjoy the benefits of non-GMO foods and organic foods (not that contaminated) and not have to worry about eating Roundup and have my future generation become sterile or worse
> 
> 
> 
> Your irrational fears are your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He still thinks sterile seeds blowing into neighboring fields would be a problem.
Click to expand...


While you think global warming is rational.

I'm gonna eat a couple of small wild caught salmon fillets, two natural cage free hen eggs, organic coffee, raw organic sugar, little GMO half-and-half, Dexter style this morning, but no pork sandwiches and mosquito.  Will watch his season 2 re-runs afterward.


What are u gonna do to prevent global warming?  Bus to work?  Yeah, right, hypocrite.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ... two natural cage free hen eggs ...



*Ewwww* ... full of worms ... God created parasites not to kill the chickens, but only bring the chicken to a near-death state of health ... so unless those chickens are pumped full of evil de-wormer, your eggs are coming from sick and abused animals ... how awful of you ... torturing innocent animals, having them live right at the border of death ... or you're just chowing down on nasty de-wormer medicine, like that's better than GMOs or something ...

I'm not saying keeping chickens in small cages is great ... but it does keep them healthier without all the dangerous chemicals in their feed ...


----------



## james bond

Mine are American Humane Standard cage free.

"
Freedom from hunger and thirst
• Freedom from discomfort
• Freedom from pain, injury, or disease
• Freedom from fear and distress
• Freedom to express normal behaviors
"

You can see their "cage free" standards by downloading here -- humaneheartland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=106&jsmallfib=1&dir=JSROOT/Animal+Welfare+Full+Standards+%2B+Supplements.






"
No worry from the stuff you get with broken bones.


Chicken are *GENETICALLY MODIFIED* with *hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs* so they become *LARGER FASTER* and as a result they often *CRIPPLE* under their own weights”

“Most chickens or turkeys suffer with *ammonia, bronchitis, weakened immune system, failed organs or respiratory problems* during their short lives of 6 weeks until they get slaughtered”

“One out of three kids born after the year *2000 is OBESE*. Consuming all these hormones, drugs, antibiotics, GMOs and carcinogens have caused* chronic diseases including obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes*”.

"
Yours may not be worms, but worse.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Mine are American Humane Standard cage free.



Do you get little vests for your chickens to wear that says "Approved by the American Humane Society"? ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mine are American Humane Standard cage free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get little vests for your chickens to wear that says "Approved by the American Humane Society"? ...
Click to expand...


Interesting you care more about what I eat than the cruelty you stuff into your mouth.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Interesting you care more about what I eat than the cruelty you stuff into your mouth.



Yeah ... I was the neighbor who the filthy hippies living in their commune would task with all the slaughtering ... slitting the throat of their snowflake pet goat wasn't going to happen otherwise ... the same people who don't think twice about ripping the genitalia off innocent plants to present to their females in order to get access to their genitalia ...

Fucking hypocrites ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and I get to enjoy the benefits of non-GMO foods and organic foods (not that contaminated) and not have to worry about eating Roundup and have my future generation become sterile or worse
> 
> 
> 
> Your irrational fears are your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He still thinks sterile seeds blowing into neighboring fields would be a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you think global warming is rational.
> 
> I'm gonna eat a couple of small wild caught salmon fillets, two natural cage free hen eggs, organic coffee, raw organic sugar, little GMO half-and-half, Dexter style this morning, but no pork sandwiches and mosquito.  Will watch his season 2 re-runs afterward.
> 
> 
> What are u gonna do to prevent global warming?  Bus to work?  Yeah, right, hypocrite.
Click to expand...


*While you think global warming is rational. *

I mock AGW idiocy all the time. 

Now tell me about those sterile seeds ruining nearby farms.......sounds interesting!!

*What are u gonna do to prevent global warming?*

Burn an old tire.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> View attachment 464740
> 
> Mine are American Humane Standard cage free.
> 
> "
> Freedom from hunger and thirst
> • Freedom from discomfort
> • Freedom from pain, injury, or disease
> • Freedom from fear and distress
> • Freedom to express normal behaviors
> "
> 
> You can see their "cage free" standards by downloading here -- humaneheartland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=106&jsmallfib=1&dir=JSROOT/Animal+Welfare+Full+Standards+%2B+Supplements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> No worry from the stuff you get with broken bones.
> 
> 
> Chicken are *GENETICALLY MODIFIED* with *hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs* so they become *LARGER FASTER* and as a result they often *CRIPPLE* under their own weights”
> 
> “Most chickens or turkeys suffer with *ammonia, bronchitis, weakened immune system, failed organs or respiratory problems* during their short lives of 6 weeks until they get slaughtered”
> 
> “One out of three kids born after the year *2000 is OBESE*. Consuming all these hormones, drugs, antibiotics, GMOs and carcinogens have caused* chronic diseases including obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes*”.
> 
> "
> Yours may not be worms, but worse.



_Chicken are *GENETICALLY MODIFIED* with *hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs* _

Which of those things is modifying their genes? Can you be specific?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> EU countries have already banned use of Roundup.


Which was a political decision, not a science based decision. They have to get the votes of irrational people, too. Similarly, we have a whole wave of frauds in elected office in the US that deny the conclusions of climate science.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting you care more about what I eat than the cruelty you stuff into your mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... I was the neighbor who the filthy hippies living in their commune would task with all the slaughtering ... slitting the throat of their snowflake pet goat wasn't going to happen otherwise ... the same people who don't think twice about ripping the genitalia off innocent plants to present to their females in order to get access to their genitalia ...
> 
> Fucking hypocrites ...
Click to expand...


Is that no brag, just fact?






C'mon you should have more to say such as I drive an electric car to work.  The above model is cheaper than a Kia.  Even I could come up with that one.  That's how I knew you were a hypocrite.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> EU countries have already banned use of Roundup.
> 
> 
> 
> Which was a political decision, not a science based decision. They have to get the votes of irrational people, too. Similarly, we have a whole wave of frauds in elected office in the US that deny the conclusions of climate science.
Click to expand...


I doubt Bayer/Monsanto would pay out billions for political unless they were getting political favors..


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 464740
> 
> Mine are American Humane Standard cage free.
> 
> "
> Freedom from hunger and thirst
> • Freedom from discomfort
> • Freedom from pain, injury, or disease
> • Freedom from fear and distress
> • Freedom to express normal behaviors
> "
> 
> You can see their "cage free" standards by downloading here -- humaneheartland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=106&jsmallfib=1&dir=JSROOT/Animal+Welfare+Full+Standards+%2B+Supplements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> No worry from the stuff you get with broken bones.
> 
> 
> Chicken are *GENETICALLY MODIFIED* with *hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs* so they become *LARGER FASTER* and as a result they often *CRIPPLE* under their own weights”
> 
> “Most chickens or turkeys suffer with *ammonia, bronchitis, weakened immune system, failed organs or respiratory problems* during their short lives of 6 weeks until they get slaughtered”
> 
> “One out of three kids born after the year *2000 is OBESE*. Consuming all these hormones, drugs, antibiotics, GMOs and carcinogens have caused* chronic diseases including obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes*”.
> 
> "
> Yours may not be worms, but worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Chicken are *GENETICALLY MODIFIED* with *hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs* _
> 
> Which of those things is modifying their genes? Can you be specific?
Click to expand...


No need to answer your questions.  You never answer my questions as you have not evolved at all.  Just eat, eat, eat and find out.  The proof is in the pudding, yes?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 464740
> 
> Mine are American Humane Standard cage free.
> 
> "
> Freedom from hunger and thirst
> • Freedom from discomfort
> • Freedom from pain, injury, or disease
> • Freedom from fear and distress
> • Freedom to express normal behaviors
> "
> 
> You can see their "cage free" standards by downloading here -- humaneheartland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=106&jsmallfib=1&dir=JSROOT/Animal+Welfare+Full+Standards+%2B+Supplements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> No worry from the stuff you get with broken bones.
> 
> 
> Chicken are *GENETICALLY MODIFIED* with *hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs* so they become *LARGER FASTER* and as a result they often *CRIPPLE* under their own weights”
> 
> “Most chickens or turkeys suffer with *ammonia, bronchitis, weakened immune system, failed organs or respiratory problems* during their short lives of 6 weeks until they get slaughtered”
> 
> “One out of three kids born after the year *2000 is OBESE*. Consuming all these hormones, drugs, antibiotics, GMOs and carcinogens have caused* chronic diseases including obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes*”.
> 
> "
> Yours may not be worms, but worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Chicken are *GENETICALLY MODIFIED* with *hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs* _
> 
> Which of those things is modifying their genes? Can you be specific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to answer your questions.  You never answer my questions as you have not evolved at all.  Just eat, eat, eat and find out.  The proof is in the pudding, yes?
Click to expand...


*No need to answer your questions.  *

You could just say none of those modifies their genes....

_“Most chickens or turkeys suffer with _*ammonia,*

Sounds serious!!! Tell me more.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I doubt Bayer/Monsanto would pay out billions for political unless they were getting political favors


Then you didn't spend much time thinking about it. Those contributions are bets.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt Bayer/Monsanto would pay out billions for political unless they were getting political favors
> 
> 
> 
> Then you didn't spend much time thinking about it. Those contributions are bets.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense.  Bayer/Monsanto will have their big moneymaker Roundup banned in 2023 by Germany their home country  .

Even Mexico has banned Roundup and GM corn and hope to be free in 2024.  US should follow suit as more states want to ban.

So much for bad and wrong atheist science.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 464740
> 
> Mine are American Humane Standard cage free.
> 
> "
> Freedom from hunger and thirst
> • Freedom from discomfort
> • Freedom from pain, injury, or disease
> • Freedom from fear and distress
> • Freedom to express normal behaviors
> "
> 
> You can see their "cage free" standards by downloading here -- humaneheartland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=106&jsmallfib=1&dir=JSROOT/Animal+Welfare+Full+Standards+%2B+Supplements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> No worry from the stuff you get with broken bones.
> 
> 
> Chicken are *GENETICALLY MODIFIED* with *hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs* so they become *LARGER FASTER* and as a result they often *CRIPPLE* under their own weights”
> 
> “Most chickens or turkeys suffer with *ammonia, bronchitis, weakened immune system, failed organs or respiratory problems* during their short lives of 6 weeks until they get slaughtered”
> 
> “One out of three kids born after the year *2000 is OBESE*. Consuming all these hormones, drugs, antibiotics, GMOs and carcinogens have caused* chronic diseases including obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes*”.
> 
> "
> Yours may not be worms, but worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Chicken are *GENETICALLY MODIFIED* with *hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs* _
> 
> Which of those things is modifying their genes? Can you be specific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to answer your questions.  You never answer my questions as you have not evolved at all.  Just eat, eat, eat and find out.  The proof is in the pudding, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No need to answer your questions.  *
> 
> You could just say none of those modifies their genes....
> 
> _“Most chickens or turkeys suffer with _*ammonia,*
> 
> Sounds serious!!! Tell me more.
Click to expand...


Why don't you tell us how delicious your lunch will be today?  For example, fried chicken with all the fixings.  And that, you're going for a drive in the country in your electric car afterward.  Maybe you can plug it into a wind turbine to get full charged before going home .






Wouldn't that easily beat asking about my breakfast and tv show and you'd be practicing what you preach.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> That makes no sense.


Because you are lazy of mind. Political contributions don't guarantee anything. They are bets. 

And those are political decisions, because politicians need the votes of irrational people, too. Its why so many of the republicans you vote for lie and claim not to believe evolution os a fact. They are lying to get the votes of people like you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 464740
> 
> Mine are American Humane Standard cage free.
> 
> "
> Freedom from hunger and thirst
> • Freedom from discomfort
> • Freedom from pain, injury, or disease
> • Freedom from fear and distress
> • Freedom to express normal behaviors
> "
> 
> You can see their "cage free" standards by downloading here -- humaneheartland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=106&jsmallfib=1&dir=JSROOT/Animal+Welfare+Full+Standards+%2B+Supplements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> No worry from the stuff you get with broken bones.
> 
> 
> Chicken are *GENETICALLY MODIFIED* with *hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs* so they become *LARGER FASTER* and as a result they often *CRIPPLE* under their own weights”
> 
> “Most chickens or turkeys suffer with *ammonia, bronchitis, weakened immune system, failed organs or respiratory problems* during their short lives of 6 weeks until they get slaughtered”
> 
> “One out of three kids born after the year *2000 is OBESE*. Consuming all these hormones, drugs, antibiotics, GMOs and carcinogens have caused* chronic diseases including obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes*”.
> 
> "
> Yours may not be worms, but worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Chicken are *GENETICALLY MODIFIED* with *hormones, carcinogens, GMOs, corn pills, arsenic and drugs* _
> 
> Which of those things is modifying their genes? Can you be specific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to answer your questions.  You never answer my questions as you have not evolved at all.  Just eat, eat, eat and find out.  The proof is in the pudding, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No need to answer your questions.  *
> 
> You could just say none of those modifies their genes....
> 
> _“Most chickens or turkeys suffer with _*ammonia,*
> 
> Sounds serious!!! Tell me more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you tell us how delicious your lunch will be today?  For example, fried chicken with all the fixings.  And that, you're going for a drive in the country in your electric car afterward.  Maybe you can plug it into a wind turbine to get full charged before going home .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that easily beat asking about my breakfast and tv show and you'd be practicing what you preach.
Click to expand...


Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are lazy of mind. Political contributions don't guarantee anything. They are bets.
> 
> And those are political decisions, because politicians need the votes of irrational people, too. Its why so many of the republicans you vote for lie and claim not to believe evolution os a fact. They are lying to get the votes of people like you.
Click to expand...


It was a big bet that Nazi Bayer of Germany lost buying Monsanto and trying to monopolize the seed market.  Just like you'll lose your big bet against God (actually a bet on the other guy).  Millions and billions of years is a long time which you will come to realize watching to see if evolution happens (when I already proved that it doesn't smh).

I doubt politicians would lie over God.  If one doesn't have core values, then they are called Democrats.  Like you're interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday more than tooling around in an electric car (only you don't have one).  I doubt I ever get an electric car.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?



I just told Fort Fun Indiana above about the libs being more interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday than living their own life and living their code or core values.

Cooties are better than eating Roundup and getting cancer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told Fort Fun Indiana above about the libs being more interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday than living their own life and living their code or core values.
> 
> Cooties are better than eating Roundup and getting cancer.
Click to expand...


You never explained your sterile seed theory.
Or the poor chickens suffering from ammonia.
Now I'm worried.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told Fort Fun Indiana above about the libs being more interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday than living their own life and living their code or core values.
> 
> Cooties are better than eating Roundup and getting cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory.
> Or the poor chickens suffering from ammonia.
> Now I'm worried.
Click to expand...


Are u worried your penis will fall off (symbolism for becoming sterile) ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told Fort Fun Indiana above about the libs being more interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday than living their own life and living their code or core values.
> 
> Cooties are better than eating Roundup and getting cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory.
> Or the poor chickens suffering from ammonia.
> Now I'm worried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are u worried your penis will fall off (symbolism for becoming sterile) ?
Click to expand...


You keep talking about penises. Are you touching yourself again?

Why don't we stick to your claims about food and leave the porn out?

You never explained your sterile seed theory. How would they harm nearby farms?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because you are lazy of mind. Political contributions don't guarantee anything. They are bets.



While the EU has banned Roundup and restricted GMO foods (so they are removed in food products), it isn't so in the USA.  The FDA has been bought out (like you say bets) and the GMO food producers have won here.  It's been a struggle just to get food labeling of GMO foods, ingredients, and processing.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told Fort Fun Indiana above about the libs being more interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday than living their own life and living their code or core values.
> 
> Cooties are better than eating Roundup and getting cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory.
> Or the poor chickens suffering from ammonia.
> Now I'm worried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are u worried your penis will fall off (symbolism for becoming sterile) ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep talking about penises. Are you touching yourself again?
> 
> Why don't we stick to your claims about food and leave the porn out?
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory. How would they harm nearby farms?
Click to expand...


I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about, Mr. Hypocrite?

Just look at EU and what they are fighting and doing as well as Mexico.  The FDA in the US has been bought out.

ETA:  Your bug, Fort Fun Indiana , has it figured out as a bet by Bayer/Monsanto.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told Fort Fun Indiana above about the libs being more interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday than living their own life and living their code or core values.
> 
> Cooties are better than eating Roundup and getting cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory.
> Or the poor chickens suffering from ammonia.
> Now I'm worried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are u worried your penis will fall off (symbolism for becoming sterile) ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep talking about penises. Are you touching yourself again?
> 
> Why don't we stick to your claims about food and leave the porn out?
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory. How would they harm nearby farms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about, Mr. Hypocrite?
> 
> Just look at EU and what they are fighting and doing as well as Mexico.  The FDA in the US has been bought out.
> 
> ETA:  Your bug, Fort Fun Indiana , has it figured out as a bet by Bayer/Monsanto.
Click to expand...


*I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about *

I'm concerned about your SUPER interesting theory about sterile seeds.
Why are you running away from it?

And the chickens suffering from ammonia. Very sad.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told Fort Fun Indiana above about the libs being more interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday than living their own life and living their code or core values.
> 
> Cooties are better than eating Roundup and getting cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory.
> Or the poor chickens suffering from ammonia.
> Now I'm worried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are u worried your penis will fall off (symbolism for becoming sterile) ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep talking about penises. Are you touching yourself again?
> 
> Why don't we stick to your claims about food and leave the porn out?
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory. How would they harm nearby farms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about, Mr. Hypocrite?
> 
> Just look at EU and what they are fighting and doing as well as Mexico.  The FDA in the US has been bought out.
> 
> ETA:  Your bug, Fort Fun Indiana , has it figured out as a bet by Bayer/Monsanto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about *
> 
> I'm concerned about your SUPER interesting theory about sterile seeds.
> Why are you running away from it?
> 
> And the chickens suffering from ammonia. Very sad.
Click to expand...


Why would you be concerned about that?  Regardless, you'll continue to eat GMO foods and Roundup.  I think of it is like you and the other atheists eating their _religious food_.  Atheism is a religion.  

I eat non-GMO food as it is what God commanded in the Bible.  It IS SUPER INTERESTING that he said, "Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."  Genesis 1:29  I'm okay with you considering non-GMO food as _religious food_ for me and the believers.

If the farmers can show damage to their farmland, lymphoma/other cancers and sterility upon themselves and their families, then I think they'll sue.  The lawyers are getting big bucks for their clients.

GMO seeds aren't SUPER interesting to me.  I'm not a farmer.  You said there are both sterile and non-sterile seeds, but never explained the difference.  Notice that GMO has seed bearing plants and fruits per your claim, but they cannot be reused and that they need Roundup to kill the weeds that come up against the GMO plants and trees.  It's a fine line, but why take chances of eating Roundup?

I can't believe this thread has continued to go on like it has .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told Fort Fun Indiana above about the libs being more interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday than living their own life and living their code or core values.
> 
> Cooties are better than eating Roundup and getting cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory.
> Or the poor chickens suffering from ammonia.
> Now I'm worried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are u worried your penis will fall off (symbolism for becoming sterile) ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep talking about penises. Are you touching yourself again?
> 
> Why don't we stick to your claims about food and leave the porn out?
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory. How would they harm nearby farms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about, Mr. Hypocrite?
> 
> Just look at EU and what they are fighting and doing as well as Mexico.  The FDA in the US has been bought out.
> 
> ETA:  Your bug, Fort Fun Indiana , has it figured out as a bet by Bayer/Monsanto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about *
> 
> I'm concerned about your SUPER interesting theory about sterile seeds.
> Why are you running away from it?
> 
> And the chickens suffering from ammonia. Very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you be concerned about that?  Regardless, you'll continue to eat GMO foods and Roundup.  I think of it is like you and the other atheists eating their _religious food_.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> I eat non-GMO food as it is what God commanded in the Bible.  It IS SUPER INTERESTING that he said, "Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."  Genesis 1:29  I'm okay with you considering non-GMO food as _religious food_ for me and the believers.
> 
> If the farmers can show damage to their farmland, lymphoma/other cancers and sterility upon themselves and their families, then I think they'll sue.  The lawyers are getting big bucks for their clients.
> 
> GMO seeds aren't SUPER interesting to me.  I'm not a farmer.  You said there are both sterile and non-sterile seeds, but never explained the difference.  Notice that GMO has seed bearing plants and fruits per your claim, but they cannot be reused and that they need Roundup to kill the weeds that come up against the GMO plants and trees.  It's a fine line, but why take chances of eating Roundup?
> 
> I can't believe this thread has continued to go on like it has .
Click to expand...

*
Why would you be concerned about that? *

Because your ignorant claims are hilarious!

*I eat non-GMO food as it is what God commanded in the Bible.*

Where did the Bible, or God, mention GMO food?

* You said there are both sterile and non-sterile seeds*

You mentioned sterile seeds. In post #695. In post #706, you said farmers will be upset 
if sterile seeds blew onto their land. You never explained why. So.....why?

*but never explained the difference.*

You mentioned sterile seeds, you don't know?

*Notice that GMO has seed bearing plants and fruits per your claim, but they cannot be reused*

Because that would violate the contract the farmer has with the seed company.

*and that they need Roundup to kill the weeds that come up against the GMO plants and trees.*

Weeds aren't specific to GMO crops.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told Fort Fun Indiana above about the libs being more interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday than living their own life and living their code or core values.
> 
> Cooties are better than eating Roundup and getting cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory.
> Or the poor chickens suffering from ammonia.
> Now I'm worried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are u worried your penis will fall off (symbolism for becoming sterile) ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep talking about penises. Are you touching yourself again?
> 
> Why don't we stick to your claims about food and leave the porn out?
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory. How would they harm nearby farms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about, Mr. Hypocrite?
> 
> Just look at EU and what they are fighting and doing as well as Mexico.  The FDA in the US has been bought out.
> 
> ETA:  Your bug, Fort Fun Indiana , has it figured out as a bet by Bayer/Monsanto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about *
> 
> I'm concerned about your SUPER interesting theory about sterile seeds.
> Why are you running away from it?
> 
> And the chickens suffering from ammonia. Very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you be concerned about that?  Regardless, you'll continue to eat GMO foods and Roundup.  I think of it is like you and the other atheists eating their _religious food_.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> I eat non-GMO food as it is what God commanded in the Bible.  It IS SUPER INTERESTING that he said, "Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."  Genesis 1:29  I'm okay with you considering non-GMO food as _religious food_ for me and the believers.
> 
> If the farmers can show damage to their farmland, lymphoma/other cancers and sterility upon themselves and their families, then I think they'll sue.  The lawyers are getting big bucks for their clients.
> 
> GMO seeds aren't SUPER interesting to me.  I'm not a farmer.  You said there are both sterile and non-sterile seeds, but never explained the difference.  Notice that GMO has seed bearing plants and fruits per your claim, but they cannot be reused and that they need Roundup to kill the weeds that come up against the GMO plants and trees.  It's a fine line, but why take chances of eating Roundup?
> 
> I can't believe this thread has continued to go on like it has .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why would you be concerned about that? *
> 
> Because your ignorant claims are hilarious!
> 
> *I eat non-GMO food as it is what God commanded in the Bible.*
> 
> Where did the Bible, or God, mention GMO food?
> 
> * You said there are both sterile and non-sterile seeds*
> 
> You mentioned sterile seeds. In post #695. In post #706, you said farmers will be upset
> if sterile seeds blew onto their land. You never explained why. So.....why?
> 
> *but never explained the difference.*
> 
> You mentioned sterile seeds, you don't know?
> 
> *Notice that GMO has seed bearing plants and fruits per your claim, but they cannot be reused*
> 
> Because that would violate the contract the farmer has with the seed company.
> 
> *and that they need Roundup to kill the weeds that come up against the GMO plants and trees.*
> 
> Weeds aren't specific to GMO crops.
Click to expand...


My claims are right.  Yours have turned out wrong.

I quoted it in the above post.  But you couldn't explain about the difference between sterile and non-sterile seeds.  That's at least twice you didn't explain, so you don't know.

You don't get it.  If they cannot be reused, then it may not follow what God provided for us to eat.  It doesn't specifically mean God didn't provide it as food for us, but it becomes a gray area.  Again, why would one want to eat cancer causing Roundup in the food?  Why do the GMO farmers have to spray more and more Roundup to fight the weeds?  If you are putting your health on the line, then I rather play it safe with non-GMO foods.

I'm not the ignorant one.  You're suppose to know about the seeds with the farmers and could not tell me what type of seeds.

Lol, I know it violates the contract.  So what did Monsanto scientists develop to make sure their GMO seeds can only be used once?

You're just avoiding the Roundup issue, instead of explaining or rebutting it.  Also, you're not comparing it to less strong weed spray that non-GMO farmers use.

Anyway, none of us are going to get anything interesting from you so good bye.  At least, Fort Fun Indiana brought up interesting points and was able to explain.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told Fort Fun Indiana above about the libs being more interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday than living their own life and living their code or core values.
> 
> Cooties are better than eating Roundup and getting cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory.
> Or the poor chickens suffering from ammonia.
> Now I'm worried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are u worried your penis will fall off (symbolism for becoming sterile) ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep talking about penises. Are you touching yourself again?
> 
> Why don't we stick to your claims about food and leave the porn out?
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory. How would they harm nearby farms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about, Mr. Hypocrite?
> 
> Just look at EU and what they are fighting and doing as well as Mexico.  The FDA in the US has been bought out.
> 
> ETA:  Your bug, Fort Fun Indiana , has it figured out as a bet by Bayer/Monsanto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about *
> 
> I'm concerned about your SUPER interesting theory about sterile seeds.
> Why are you running away from it?
> 
> And the chickens suffering from ammonia. Very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you be concerned about that?  Regardless, you'll continue to eat GMO foods and Roundup.  I think of it is like you and the other atheists eating their _religious food_.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> I eat non-GMO food as it is what God commanded in the Bible.  It IS SUPER INTERESTING that he said, "Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."  Genesis 1:29  I'm okay with you considering non-GMO food as _religious food_ for me and the believers.
> 
> If the farmers can show damage to their farmland, lymphoma/other cancers and sterility upon themselves and their families, then I think they'll sue.  The lawyers are getting big bucks for their clients.
> 
> GMO seeds aren't SUPER interesting to me.  I'm not a farmer.  You said there are both sterile and non-sterile seeds, but never explained the difference.  Notice that GMO has seed bearing plants and fruits per your claim, but they cannot be reused and that they need Roundup to kill the weeds that come up against the GMO plants and trees.  It's a fine line, but why take chances of eating Roundup?
> 
> I can't believe this thread has continued to go on like it has .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why would you be concerned about that? *
> 
> Because your ignorant claims are hilarious!
> 
> *I eat non-GMO food as it is what God commanded in the Bible.*
> 
> Where did the Bible, or God, mention GMO food?
> 
> * You said there are both sterile and non-sterile seeds*
> 
> You mentioned sterile seeds. In post #695. In post #706, you said farmers will be upset
> if sterile seeds blew onto their land. You never explained why. So.....why?
> 
> *but never explained the difference.*
> 
> You mentioned sterile seeds, you don't know?
> 
> *Notice that GMO has seed bearing plants and fruits per your claim, but they cannot be reused*
> 
> Because that would violate the contract the farmer has with the seed company.
> 
> *and that they need Roundup to kill the weeds that come up against the GMO plants and trees.*
> 
> Weeds aren't specific to GMO crops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My claims are right.  Yours have turned out wrong.
> 
> I quoted it in the above post.  But you couldn't explain about the difference between sterile and non-sterile seeds.  That's at least twice you didn't explain, so you don't know.
> 
> You don't get it.  If they cannot be reused, then it may not follow what God provided for us to eat.  It doesn't specifically mean God didn't provide it as food for us, but it becomes a gray area.  Again, why would one want to eat cancer causing Roundup in the food?  Why do the GMO farmers have to spray more and more Roundup to fight the weeds?  If you are putting your health on the line, then I rather play it safe with non-GMO foods.
> 
> I'm not the ignorant one.  You're suppose to know about the seeds with the farmers and could not tell me what type of seeds.
> 
> Lol, I know it violates the contract.  So what did Monsanto scientists develop to make sure their GMO seeds can only be used once?
> 
> You're just avoiding the Roundup issue, instead of explaining or rebutting it.  Also, you're not comparing it to less strong weed spray that non-GMO farmers use.
> 
> Anyway, none of us are going to get anything interesting from you so good bye.  At least, Fort Fun Indiana brought up interesting points and was able to explain.
Click to expand...


*My claims are right. *

You claimed sterile seeds blowing into a nearby field are a problem. How?

*But you couldn't explain about the difference between sterile and non-sterile seeds. *

You said sterile seeds are a problem. You don't know what a sterile seed even is? LOL!

*If they cannot be reused, then it may not follow what God provided for us to eat. *

GMO seeds can't be reused? 

*Why do the GMO farmers have to spray more and more Roundup to fight the weeds? *

Some weeds become resistant. It's an evolutionary thing, you wouldn't understand.

*So what did Monsanto scientists develop to make sure their GMO seeds can only be used once?*

They didn't. What makes you think they did?

*Anyway, none of us are going to get anything interesting from you so good bye. *

Run away. Again. Durr.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a brain parasite from one of your cootie filled eggs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told Fort Fun Indiana above about the libs being more interested in what I had for breakfast yesterday than living their own life and living their code or core values.
> 
> Cooties are better than eating Roundup and getting cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory.
> Or the poor chickens suffering from ammonia.
> Now I'm worried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are u worried your penis will fall off (symbolism for becoming sterile) ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep talking about penises. Are you touching yourself again?
> 
> Why don't we stick to your claims about food and leave the porn out?
> 
> You never explained your sterile seed theory. How would they harm nearby farms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about, Mr. Hypocrite?
> 
> Just look at EU and what they are fighting and doing as well as Mexico.  The FDA in the US has been bought out.
> 
> ETA:  Your bug, Fort Fun Indiana , has it figured out as a bet by Bayer/Monsanto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm trying to find out what you are concerned about *
> 
> I'm concerned about your SUPER interesting theory about sterile seeds.
> Why are you running away from it?
> 
> And the chickens suffering from ammonia. Very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you be concerned about that?  Regardless, you'll continue to eat GMO foods and Roundup.  I think of it is like you and the other atheists eating their _religious food_.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> I eat non-GMO food as it is what God commanded in the Bible.  It IS SUPER INTERESTING that he said, "Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."  Genesis 1:29  I'm okay with you considering non-GMO food as _religious food_ for me and the believers.
> 
> If the farmers can show damage to their farmland, lymphoma/other cancers and sterility upon themselves and their families, then I think they'll sue.  The lawyers are getting big bucks for their clients.
> 
> GMO seeds aren't SUPER interesting to me.  I'm not a farmer.  You said there are both sterile and non-sterile seeds, but never explained the difference.  Notice that GMO has seed bearing plants and fruits per your claim, but they cannot be reused and that they need Roundup to kill the weeds that come up against the GMO plants and trees.  It's a fine line, but why take chances of eating Roundup?
> 
> I can't believe this thread has continued to go on like it has .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why would you be concerned about that? *
> 
> Because your ignorant claims are hilarious!
> 
> *I eat non-GMO food as it is what God commanded in the Bible.*
> 
> Where did the Bible, or God, mention GMO food?
> 
> * You said there are both sterile and non-sterile seeds*
> 
> You mentioned sterile seeds. In post #695. In post #706, you said farmers will be upset
> if sterile seeds blew onto their land. You never explained why. So.....why?
> 
> *but never explained the difference.*
> 
> You mentioned sterile seeds, you don't know?
> 
> *Notice that GMO has seed bearing plants and fruits per your claim, but they cannot be reused*
> 
> Because that would violate the contract the farmer has with the seed company.
> 
> *and that they need Roundup to kill the weeds that come up against the GMO plants and trees.*
> 
> Weeds aren't specific to GMO crops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My claims are right.  Yours have turned out wrong.
> 
> I quoted it in the above post.  But you couldn't explain about the difference between sterile and non-sterile seeds.  That's at least twice you didn't explain, so you don't know.
> 
> You don't get it.  If they cannot be reused, then it may not follow what God provided for us to eat.  It doesn't specifically mean God didn't provide it as food for us, but it becomes a gray area.  Again, why would one want to eat cancer causing Roundup in the food?  Why do the GMO farmers have to spray more and more Roundup to fight the weeds?  If you are putting your health on the line, then I rather play it safe with non-GMO foods.
> 
> I'm not the ignorant one.  You're suppose to know about the seeds with the farmers and could not tell me what type of seeds.
> 
> Lol, I know it violates the contract.  So what did Monsanto scientists develop to make sure their GMO seeds can only be used once?
> 
> You're just avoiding the Roundup issue, instead of explaining or rebutting it.  Also, you're not comparing it to less strong weed spray that non-GMO farmers use.
> 
> Anyway, none of us are going to get anything interesting from you so good bye.  At least, Fort Fun Indiana brought up interesting points and was able to explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *My claims are right. *
> 
> You claimed sterile seeds blowing into a nearby field are a problem. How?
> 
> *But you couldn't explain about the difference between sterile and non-sterile seeds. *
> 
> You said sterile seeds are a problem. You don't know what a sterile seed even is? LOL!
> 
> *If they cannot be reused, then it may not follow what God provided for us to eat. *
> 
> GMO seeds can't be reused?
> 
> *Why do the GMO farmers have to spray more and more Roundup to fight the weeds? *
> 
> Some weeds become resistant. It's an evolutionary thing, you wouldn't understand.
> 
> *So what did Monsanto scientists develop to make sure their GMO seeds can only be used once?*
> 
> They didn't. What makes you think they did?
> 
> *Anyway, none of us are going to get anything interesting from you so good bye. *
> 
> Run away. Again. Durr.
Click to expand...


You're still on your GMO non-sterile vs sterile seeds rant.  Tell us about Roundup, foo.  Why is Mexico wanting to ban a specific GMO seed and Roundup?  Why are the EU banning certain types of seeds?  What are they banning?  What is the difference between sterile and non-sterile seed (for the third time since it is so important to you)?  You're supposed to be the _knowledgeable_ guy here on GMO seeds and farmers, but are asking me the questions.  That proves you haven't evolved as a person at all. 

I'm the guy in favor of non-GMO foods and organic farming, but God said plants and fruits that provided seeds were okay to eat.  I admitted GMO foods were safe (think the sterile seeds are BAD tho and doesn't fit what God said we could eat).  However, personally, I don't want to eat the Roundup.  Perhaps every homeowner is familiar with Roundup b/c of using it before.  Do you still use Roundup?  We have a lot of weeds in the local area this spring due to the rain and the winds.

Good bye and good riddance.  I'll get the last word in on this .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> You're still on your GMO non-sterile vs sterile seeds rant.



Still running away from your claim? DURR.

*What is the difference between sterile and non-sterile seed (for the third time since it is so important to you)?  *

It's not important to me....at all.
Except as an example of your ignorance.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still on your GMO non-sterile vs sterile seeds rant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still running away from your claim? DURR.
> 
> *What is the difference between sterile and non-sterile seed (for the third time since it is so important to you)?  *
> 
> It's not important to me....at all.
> Except as an example of your ignorance.
Click to expand...


As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed.

This the fourth time I'm explaining it.  You're like Ringtone.  The _non-sterile seed_ and the plants and fruits that produce it are important to me.  And why is that?  You should know by now.

I'm going to assume you do not know the differences since the differences are not important at all.  That's proof of YOUR ignorance.  You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds, but could not answer what are the differences .

A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are _sterile_ seeds?  He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed.
> 
> This the fourth time I'm explaining it.  You're like Ringtone.  The _non-sterile seed_ and the plants and fruits that produce it are important to me.  And why is that?  You should know by now.
> 
> I'm going to assume you do not know the differences since the differences are not important at all.  That's proof of YOUR ignorance.  You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds, but could not answer what are the differences .
> 
> A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are _sterile_ seeds?  He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.



Hey, *James,* I see that you're up to you lying-ass dogishness again.  

So when you read _a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things _or_ a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something,_ does the mathematical concept of an actual infinite pop into existence inside your mind at all? Perhaps the problem here is episodic amnesia or Alzheimer's disease. It pops into your mind when you read the concept's definition . . . and, then, immediately pops out of your mind. Very curious, seemingly magical. Maybe your dyslexic. No, wait. It's a concept, so that wouldn't explain the problem.  

Rather, you're a lying-ass dog of a whore.

Did you ask Jesus to forgive you yet?


----------



## harmonica

Ringtone said:


> The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
> 
> The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise.  His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
> 
> _Hocus Pocus_
> 
> We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.


at least it's a theory and not ''god did it''
HAHAHAHAHAHAHH


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still on your GMO non-sterile vs sterile seeds rant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still running away from your claim? DURR.
> 
> *What is the difference between sterile and non-sterile seed (for the third time since it is so important to you)?  *
> 
> It's not important to me....at all.
> Except as an example of your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed.
> 
> This the fourth time I'm explaining it.  You're like Ringtone.  The _non-sterile seed_ and the plants and fruits that produce it are important to me.  And why is that?  You should know by now.
> 
> I'm going to assume you do not know the differences since the differences are not important at all.  That's proof of YOUR ignorance.  You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds, but could not answer what are the differences .
> 
> A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are _sterile_ seeds?  He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.
Click to expand...


*As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed. *

As usual, you brought it up, you don't know?

Will this stop your whining?

*Sterile Seed*_ means any plant, plant part, plant cell, plant tissue or plant *seed* that has been researched, created, identified, developed or modified so as to not produce viable offspring *seeds*._
*
You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds,*

You brought up sterile seeds, you did it not knowing there were sterile seeds? Weird.

*A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are sterile seeds? He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.*

You brought up sterile seeds, but your friend says there are no sterile seeds? Weird.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still on your GMO non-sterile vs sterile seeds rant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still running away from your claim? DURR.
> 
> *What is the difference between sterile and non-sterile seed (for the third time since it is so important to you)?  *
> 
> It's not important to me....at all.
> Except as an example of your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed.
> 
> This the fourth time I'm explaining it.  You're like Ringtone.  The _non-sterile seed_ and the plants and fruits that produce it are important to me.  And why is that?  You should know by now.
> 
> I'm going to assume you do not know the differences since the differences are not important at all.  That's proof of YOUR ignorance.  You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds, but could not answer what are the differences .
> 
> A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are _sterile_ seeds?  He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed. *
> 
> As usual, you brought it up, you don't know?
> 
> Will this stop your whining?
> 
> *Sterile Seed*_ means any plant, plant part, plant cell, plant tissue or plant *seed* that has been researched, created, identified, developed or modified so as to not produce viable offspring *seeds*._
> 
> *You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds,*
> 
> You brought up sterile seeds, you did it not knowing there were sterile seeds? Weird.
> 
> *A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are sterile seeds? He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.*
> 
> You brought up sterile seeds, but your friend says there are no sterile seeds? Weird.
Click to expand...


I brought up the seeds that blew into other farmers lands.  Why didn't you just say the sterile seeds don't exist?  The farmed sterile salmon exist and you agreed about being against their escape.  Part of it was Monsanto wanting technology fees from those farmers instead of it damaging their lands.  What if the _sterile seeds_ blew over into the other farmers land and mixed with their seeds?  That would've been a separate danger and would hurt the farmers if their seeds became sterile, too. 

My friend pointed out the technology exists, but Bayer/Monsanto didn't market the seeds.  Did they test the seeds?  Did they know of the results to the environment?  It would've benefited them in selling more Roundup since they would be Roundup Ready plantings.  It's easy to see that Monsanto would've profited greatly from this.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still on your GMO non-sterile vs sterile seeds rant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still running away from your claim? DURR.
> 
> *What is the difference between sterile and non-sterile seed (for the third time since it is so important to you)?  *
> 
> It's not important to me....at all.
> Except as an example of your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed.
> 
> This the fourth time I'm explaining it.  You're like Ringtone.  The _non-sterile seed_ and the plants and fruits that produce it are important to me.  And why is that?  You should know by now.
> 
> I'm going to assume you do not know the differences since the differences are not important at all.  That's proof of YOUR ignorance.  You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds, but could not answer what are the differences .
> 
> A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are _sterile_ seeds?  He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed. *
> 
> As usual, you brought it up, you don't know?
> 
> Will this stop your whining?
> 
> *Sterile Seed*_ means any plant, plant part, plant cell, plant tissue or plant *seed* that has been researched, created, identified, developed or modified so as to not produce viable offspring *seeds*._
> 
> *You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds,*
> 
> You brought up sterile seeds, you did it not knowing there were sterile seeds? Weird.
> 
> *A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are sterile seeds? He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.*
> 
> You brought up sterile seeds, but your friend says there are no sterile seeds? Weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I brought up the seeds that blew into other farmers lands.  Why didn't you just say the sterile seeds don't exist?  The farmed sterile salmon exist and you agreed about being against their escape.  Part of it was Monsanto wanting technology fees from those farmers instead of it damaging their lands.  What if the _sterile seeds_ blew over into the other farmers land and mixed with their seeds?  That would've been a separate danger and would hurt the farmers if their seeds became sterile, too.
> 
> My friend pointed out the technology exists, but Bayer/Monsanto didn't market the seeds.  Did they test the seeds?  Did they know of the results to the environment?  It would've benefited them in selling more Roundup since they would be Roundup Ready plantings.  It's easy to see that Monsanto would've profited greatly from this.
Click to expand...


*I brought up the seeds that blew into other farmers lands.  *

I know. You said when sterile seeds do that, it causes a problem. 
And than you ran away, instead of explaining why.

*The farmed sterile salmon exist and you agreed about being against their escape.*

Farmed salmon are a problem, but they aren't sterile, or they wouldn't be a problem when they escape.

*Part of it was Monsanto wanting technology fees from those farmers instead of it damaging their lands.*

Monsanto doesn't want a fee for the sterile seeds you claim are a problem.

*What if the sterile seeds blew over into the other farmers land and mixed with their seeds?  That would've been a separate danger and would hurt the farmers if their seeds became sterile, too.*

You should just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and stop digging.

*It would've benefited them in selling more Roundup since they would be Roundup Ready plantings.*

Ummm.....they've been selling Roundup Ready seeds for a long time.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still on your GMO non-sterile vs sterile seeds rant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still running away from your claim? DURR.
> 
> *What is the difference between sterile and non-sterile seed (for the third time since it is so important to you)?  *
> 
> It's not important to me....at all.
> Except as an example of your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed.
> 
> This the fourth time I'm explaining it.  You're like Ringtone.  The _non-sterile seed_ and the plants and fruits that produce it are important to me.  And why is that?  You should know by now.
> 
> I'm going to assume you do not know the differences since the differences are not important at all.  That's proof of YOUR ignorance.  You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds, but could not answer what are the differences .
> 
> A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are _sterile_ seeds?  He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed. *
> 
> As usual, you brought it up, you don't know?
> 
> Will this stop your whining?
> 
> *Sterile Seed*_ means any plant, plant part, plant cell, plant tissue or plant *seed* that has been researched, created, identified, developed or modified so as to not produce viable offspring *seeds*._
> 
> *You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds,*
> 
> You brought up sterile seeds, you did it not knowing there were sterile seeds? Weird.
> 
> *A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are sterile seeds? He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.*
> 
> You brought up sterile seeds, but your friend says there are no sterile seeds? Weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I brought up the seeds that blew into other farmers lands.  Why didn't you just say the sterile seeds don't exist?  The farmed sterile salmon exist and you agreed about being against their escape.  Part of it was Monsanto wanting technology fees from those farmers instead of it damaging their lands.  What if the _sterile seeds_ blew over into the other farmers land and mixed with their seeds?  That would've been a separate danger and would hurt the farmers if their seeds became sterile, too.
> 
> My friend pointed out the technology exists, but Bayer/Monsanto didn't market the seeds.  Did they test the seeds?  Did they know of the results to the environment?  It would've benefited them in selling more Roundup since they would be Roundup Ready plantings.  It's easy to see that Monsanto would've profited greatly from this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I brought up the seeds that blew into other farmers lands.  *
> 
> I know. You said when sterile seeds do that, it causes a problem.
> And than you ran away, instead of explaining why.
> 
> *The farmed sterile salmon exist and you agreed about being against their escape.*
> 
> Farmed salmon are a problem, but they aren't sterile, or they wouldn't be a problem when they escape.
> 
> *Part of it was Monsanto wanting technology fees from those farmers instead of it damaging their lands.*
> 
> Monsanto doesn't want a fee for the sterile seeds you claim are a problem.
> 
> *What if the sterile seeds blew over into the other farmers land and mixed with their seeds?  That would've been a separate danger and would hurt the farmers if their seeds became sterile, too.*
> 
> You should just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and stop digging.
> 
> *It would've benefited them in selling more Roundup since they would be Roundup Ready plantings.*
> 
> Ummm.....they've been selling Roundup Ready seeds for a long time.
Click to expand...


First, why don't you answer my question:

Why didn't you just say the sterile seeds don't exist?

Anyway, I'm tired of you not explaining your claims such as farmed salmon.

On second thought, forget it.  I don't care about your statements on this anymore.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still on your GMO non-sterile vs sterile seeds rant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still running away from your claim? DURR.
> 
> *What is the difference between sterile and non-sterile seed (for the third time since it is so important to you)?  *
> 
> It's not important to me....at all.
> Except as an example of your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed.
> 
> This the fourth time I'm explaining it.  You're like Ringtone.  The _non-sterile seed_ and the plants and fruits that produce it are important to me.  And why is that?  You should know by now.
> 
> I'm going to assume you do not know the differences since the differences are not important at all.  That's proof of YOUR ignorance.  You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds, but could not answer what are the differences .
> 
> A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are _sterile_ seeds?  He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As usual, you do not answer the question of the differences between the sterile and non-sterile seed. *
> 
> As usual, you brought it up, you don't know?
> 
> Will this stop your whining?
> 
> *Sterile Seed*_ means any plant, plant part, plant cell, plant tissue or plant *seed* that has been researched, created, identified, developed or modified so as to not produce viable offspring *seeds*._
> 
> *You're the one who said there are sterile and non-sterile seeds,*
> 
> You brought up sterile seeds, you did it not knowing there were sterile seeds? Weird.
> 
> *A friend of mine read your posts.  Are you sure there are sterile seeds? He explained it to me and thinks you are wrong haha.*
> 
> You brought up sterile seeds, but your friend says there are no sterile seeds? Weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I brought up the seeds that blew into other farmers lands.  Why didn't you just say the sterile seeds don't exist?  The farmed sterile salmon exist and you agreed about being against their escape.  Part of it was Monsanto wanting technology fees from those farmers instead of it damaging their lands.  What if the _sterile seeds_ blew over into the other farmers land and mixed with their seeds?  That would've been a separate danger and would hurt the farmers if their seeds became sterile, too.
> 
> My friend pointed out the technology exists, but Bayer/Monsanto didn't market the seeds.  Did they test the seeds?  Did they know of the results to the environment?  It would've benefited them in selling more Roundup since they would be Roundup Ready plantings.  It's easy to see that Monsanto would've profited greatly from this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I brought up the seeds that blew into other farmers lands.  *
> 
> I know. You said when sterile seeds do that, it causes a problem.
> And than you ran away, instead of explaining why.
> 
> *The farmed sterile salmon exist and you agreed about being against their escape.*
> 
> Farmed salmon are a problem, but they aren't sterile, or they wouldn't be a problem when they escape.
> 
> *Part of it was Monsanto wanting technology fees from those farmers instead of it damaging their lands.*
> 
> Monsanto doesn't want a fee for the sterile seeds you claim are a problem.
> 
> *What if the sterile seeds blew over into the other farmers land and mixed with their seeds?  That would've been a separate danger and would hurt the farmers if their seeds became sterile, too.*
> 
> You should just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and stop digging.
> 
> *It would've benefited them in selling more Roundup since they would be Roundup Ready plantings.*
> 
> Ummm.....they've been selling Roundup Ready seeds for a long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, why don't you answer my question:
> 
> Why didn't you just say the sterile seeds don't exist?
> 
> Anyway, I'm tired of you not explaining your claims such as farmed salmon.
> 
> On second thought, forget it.  I don't care about your statements on this anymore.
Click to expand...


*Why didn't you just say the sterile seeds don't exist?*

Because some do exist.
But they're not from Monsanto and they have nothing to do with your silly claim.

*Anyway, I'm tired of you not explaining your claims such as farmed salmon. *

You're such a child.

_The report goes on to point out that "inter-breeding of farm with wild salmon can result in reduced lifetime success, lowered individual fitness and decreases in production over at least two generations."

One that Got Away: The Issue of Farmed Salmon Escapes | The Fish Site _


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Millions and billions of years is a long time which you will come to realize watching to see if evolution happens (when I already proved that it doesn't smh).


Ah, the creationist cultist declares victory again, despite losing on the scoreboard eleventy zillion to zero. Always good for a laugh.


----------

