Creationists

[UltimateReality]

The first mutation is in the MYH16 gene and may have allowed our brains to grow bigger. The second mutation is in the FOXP2 gene and may have helped us acquire language.

Ah yes. And let the assumptive language rule!! A whole theory based on might haves and could haves. And this is SCIENCE????

funny you should say that because you fairy tale assumes facts not in evidence from start to finish.
and no the theory is supported by the evidence.
unless or until you have theory supported by better evidence(I.E. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD)THEN YOU'RE JUST FARTING FARY TALES, FRESHLY PULLED FROM YOU ASSES AND YOU CALL I T SCIENCE!

This is where your ignorance really stands out. ID Theory seeks the best explanation. No where currently do we have machines self assembling and digital code writing itself. Because that is really what you are saying isn't it, whether you claim the randomness god, you are still claiming the digital code in DNA wrote itself. Please provide a modern example of some type of lanquage or functional digital code occurring in our lifetime that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.

 

[UltimateReality]

[Why are we so different from other animals? How did we get such a big brain? Why can we talk? Until recently, these questions were nearly impossible to answer. But now, scientists are starting to figure them out.

Salvo Magazine A Sound Barrier by Denyse O'Leary

FSJ - The Fellowship of St. James bias source invalid .

I guess that pretty much disqualifies your entire theory. The incredible bias shown by scientist performing experiments to seek an outcome they already supposedly know is the answer is the epitomy of bias and preposterousness!!!! (is that a word?)

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have missed my point. Whether ID is a reasonable conclusion or not is not the issue. The problem is whether or not it is a field of scientific study.

Coming to the conclusion that there was a designer is different from either testing that idea or observing it.

I don't agree with the conclusion, but my agreement or disagreement is immaterial to this point.

The point is not that you agree with the conclusion. The point is the theory is just as valid as darwinism since it uses the same methodology and it is just as scientifically viable based on the evidence, or as evolutionary theory is so fond of quoting, based on the LACK of evidence for any other viable alternative.

The reason why they won't accept it as just as viable theory is the heads of the scientific community are either atheist and think they are intelligent enough to answer these questions without a designer or because they can't prove Gods existence or they can't test how he did it.

Which really means they can't know how he did it because they won't believe there is a being that willed all that we see into existence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ah yes. And let the assumptive language rule!! A whole theory based on might haves and could haves. And this is SCIENCE????

funny you should say that because you fairy tale assumes facts not in evidence from start to finish.
and no the theory is supported by the evidence.
unless or until you have theory supported by better evidence(I.E. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD)THEN YOU'RE JUST FARTING FARY TALES, FRESHLY PULLED FROM YOU ASSES AND YOU CALL I T SCIENCE!

This is where your ignorance really stands out. ID Theory seeks the best explanation. No where currently do we have machines self assembling and digital code writing itself. Because that is really what you are saying isn't it, whether you claim the randomness god, you are still claiming the digital code in DNA wrote itself. Please provide a modern example of some type of lanquage or functional digital code occurring in our lifetime that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.

He can't because there are none.

 

[konradv]

I studied flies for eleven years and the mutatiing offspring indeed all had shorter lifespans.

Every last one? That sounds too incredible to believe!

Yes,every offspring that had induced mutations died prematurely.

Sounds like something else going on here, like poor lab skills. You must talking about your personal experience only, because in well-designed experiments, that just doesn't happen. Not all mutations are deleterious, so there must be another explanation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Every last one? That sounds too incredible to believe!

Yes,every offspring that had induced mutations died prematurely.

Sounds like something else going on here, like poor lab skills. You must talking about your personal experience only, because in well-designed experiments, that just doesn't happen. Not all mutations are deleterious, so there must be another explanation.

Poor lab skills I think not.

We caused mutations through radiation and vaginal sponge baths. Which caused mutations in both the parents and offspring. When your origional DNA information is lost it causes problems.

I think that is a major reason why we age and die.

 

[UltimateReality]

Every last one? That sounds too incredible to believe!

Yes,every offspring that had induced mutations died prematurely.

Sounds like something else going on here, like poor lab skills. You must talking about your personal experience only, because in well-designed experiments, that just doesn't happen. Not all mutations are deleterious, so there must be another explanation.

Can you hear yourself talking? This comment shows a severe case of classic Darwinist brainwashing. "That result simply can't be right because it doesn't fit with my theory. Do the experiment again, wait... not just again...as many times as you need to to make it fit the "fact" of evolution."

You guys are utterly lost and you can't even see it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

To add since man has been on the earth we have constantly had mutations and as more and more generations passed the average lifespan decreased. Through research and advanced medicine treatment we have increased the lifespan again but not near what it once was.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes,every offspring that had induced mutations died prematurely.

Sounds like something else going on here, like poor lab skills. You must talking about your personal experience only, because in well-designed experiments, that just doesn't happen. Not all mutations are deleterious, so there must be another explanation.

Can you hear yourself talking? This comment shows a severe case of classic Darwinist brainwashing. "That result simply can't be right because it doesn't fit with my theory. Do the experiment again, wait... not just again...as many times as you need to to make it fit the "fact" of evolution."

You guys are utterly lost and you can't even see it.

I use to be one of the brainwashed until I saw it for myself.

11 years of this evidence convinced me that mutations are a dead end but I always felt a higher power was resposible for life.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes,every offspring that had induced mutations died prematurely.

Sounds like something else going on here, like poor lab skills. You must talking about your personal experience only, because in well-designed experiments, that just doesn't happen. Not all mutations are deleterious, so there must be another explanation.

Can you hear yourself talking? This comment shows a severe case of classic Darwinist brainwashing. "That result simply can't be right because it doesn't fit with my theory. Do the experiment again, wait... not just again...as many times as you need to to make it fit the "fact" of evolution."

You guys are utterly lost and you can't even see it.

Actually, I thought he was saying that other experiments of that kind have different results. If YWC's results are completely outside the norm, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the methods might have caused a different outcome.

 

[Govmule4]

Still not worthy to bet my life on it.

What evidence, exactly, would you accept?

There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.

This doesn't make sense, if the scientist is bias then so is the caveman/time traveler that would be recording the age of the earth for you. I don't think you really know what evidence would convince you of a theory. As of now, people are untrustworthy because their bias, and science is untrustworthy because people are bias. Either admit all people, including those who wrote the bible as well as scientists, are bias and untrustworthy or admit your crazy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What evidence, exactly, would you accept?

There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.

This doesn't make sense, if the scientist is bias then so is the caveman/time traveler that would be recording the age of the earth for you. I don't think you really know what evidence would convince you of a theory. As of now, people are untrustworthy because their bias, and science is untrustworthy because people are bias. Either admit all people, including those who wrote the bible as well as scientists, are bias and untrustworthy or admit your crazy.

Everyone has views and they are biased by their views.

But I was once biased about evolution but my time in the lab brought about view changes.

 

[Govmule4]

There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.

This doesn't make sense, if the scientist is bias then so is the caveman/time traveler that would be recording the age of the earth for you. I don't think you really know what evidence would convince you of a theory. As of now, people are untrustworthy because their bias, and science is untrustworthy because people are bias. Either admit all people, including those who wrote the bible as well as scientists, are bias and untrustworthy or admit your crazy.

Everyone has views and they are biased by their views.

But I was once biased about evolution but my time in the lab brought about view changes.

If everyone is bias, than I ask how is someone being there an "accurate way to determine the age of an object."

 

[Montrovant]

To add since man has been on the earth we have constantly had mutations and as more and more generations passed the average lifespan decreased. Through research and advanced medicine treatment we have increased the lifespan again but not near what it once was.

Do you have anything to base this on, other than some ages listed in the bible?

In other words, is there any objective evidence that humanity used to live longer, or is it just your personal belief?

 

[daws101]

This doesn't make sense, if the scientist is bias then so is the caveman/time traveler that would be recording the age of the earth for you. I don't think you really know what evidence would convince you of a theory. As of now, people are untrustworthy because their bias, and science is untrustworthy because people are bias. Either admit all people, including those who wrote the bible as well as scientists, are bias and untrustworthy or admit your crazy.

Everyone has views and they are biased by their views.

But I was once biased about evolution but my time in the lab brought about view changes.

If everyone is bias, than I ask how is someone being there an "accurate way to determine the age of an object."

he has no answer, if you had'nt noticed everytime they are given an answer they move the goal posts.

 

[daws101]

To add since man has been on the earth we have constantly had mutations and as more and more generations passed the average lifespan decreased. Through research and advanced medicine treatment we have increased the lifespan again but not near what it once was.

Do you have anything to base this on, other than some ages listed in the bible?

In other words, is there any objective evidence that humanity used to live longer, or is it just your personal belief?

was this before or after the last ice age?

 

[newpolitics]

You have missed my point. Whether ID is a reasonable conclusion or not is not the issue. The problem is whether or not it is a field of scientific study.

Coming to the conclusion that there was a designer is different from either testing that idea or observing it.

I don't agree with the conclusion, but my agreement or disagreement is immaterial to this point.

The point is not that you agree with the conclusion. The point is the theory is just as valid as darwinism since it uses the same methodology and it is just as scientifically viable based on the evidence, or as evolutionary theory is so fond of quoting, based on the LACK of evidence for any other viable alternative.

ID does not use the same methodology as "Darwinism" so, it is not as scientifically viable, because it is uses no method. It is an unfalsifiable conclusion based on the evidence we do have. It is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. How many times does this have to be said before you believe it? All the IDers are saying is, this seems too amazing to me, so there must be a designer. THAT'S IT! And, because these people have degrees, they can call it a theory. It's nonsense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This doesn't make sense, if the scientist is bias then so is the caveman/time traveler that would be recording the age of the earth for you. I don't think you really know what evidence would convince you of a theory. As of now, people are untrustworthy because their bias, and science is untrustworthy because people are bias. Either admit all people, including those who wrote the bible as well as scientists, are bias and untrustworthy or admit your crazy.

Everyone has views and they are biased by their views.

But I was once biased about evolution but my time in the lab brought about view changes.

If everyone is bias, than I ask how is someone being there an "accurate way to determine the age of an object."

It was actually observed if that is denied That would be dishonest. Both sides are biased ,it is human nature.

 

[Youwerecreated]

To add since man has been on the earth we have constantly had mutations and as more and more generations passed the average lifespan decreased. Through research and advanced medicine treatment we have increased the lifespan again but not near what it once was.

Do you have anything to base this on, other than some ages listed in the bible?

In other words, is there any objective evidence that humanity used to live longer, or is it just your personal belief?

There are several theories.

Some believe everythiong began to decay and our atmosphere started decaying allowing in more radiation,by the radiation can cause mutations.

Some believe the mutations are the reason for shorter lifespans. I'm one of them.

others believe this.

Why Did Old Testament Genesis People Biblical Characters Live Longer than Today Aging Process Telomere Genetic Research Analysis Greater Longevity Ancient Genesis Biblical World Explanation Factors for Greater Age at Death Prolonging Life Genome Chro

 

[UltimateReality]

The point is not that you agree with the conclusion. The point is the theory is just as valid as darwinism since it uses the same methodology and it is just as scientifically viable based on the evidence, or as evolutionary theory is so fond of quoting, based on the LACK of evidence for any other viable alternative.

ID does not use the same methodology as "Darwinism" so, it is not as scientifically viable

Uhh, yes it does. Darwin's method was to study the present to understand the distant past. That is EXACTLY what ID theory does. Funny that you and DAWS just lay down unsupported statements without any substance. Where's the beef?? It is funny how you just remain silent when I ask the really hard questions.

Copied from previous post for your review and comment:

You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

From Wiki:

"A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.

In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."

Yeah, cause the ID argument takes a severe leap in logic... DUH, only if you are blinded and brainwashed by Darwinism!!!!"

Also from Wiki:

DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing."

"DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer."

"Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

[edit] Data transmissionQuaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits."