Creationists

[daws101]

If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."

But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?

if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy


so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.

this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.

since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!



almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
is bias and not credible

Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.

I understand it perfectly, your problem is you wish I didn't .
you way overestimate your so called intelligence.
I will choose any words I wish to make my point.
that's another concept you are ignorant of , by choosing the words I did, I made them my own.
unlike yourself, who constantly butchers quotes or even more dishonestly, will paraphrase a quote, then claim that the actual quote agrees with what you claim was original to you.
example:"If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." YWC. POST#4617
THE FACT IS THAT QUOTE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE YOU COULD READ IT.
where I come from that's called taking credit for someone else's work, AKA BULLSHITING. OR BAIT AND SWITCH.

"or I will terminate this conversation"ywc
Are you gonna put me on restriction too!...MOM!

 

[daws101]

He was using simple probability arguments. If you have a combination lock with 5 digits, and each digit has 10 numbers, then the number of possibilities is 10 to the 5 power or 10 x 10 x 10 x10 x 10. This means that trying to get one specific combination, you have a 1 in 100,000 chance. He applies these simple probabilities to the argument on amino acids in a protein. How many possibilities at each link in the chain of a protein and how many links?

As far as the size of the universe goes, from Wiki:

The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[19] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed. For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years.[20] As an example, our Milky Way Galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[21] and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[22] There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the observable universe.[23] Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million[24] (107) stars up to giants with one trillion[25] (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy's center of mass. A 2010 study by astronomers estimated that the observable universe contains 300 sextillion (3×10log23) stars.[26]

Since the density and volume of the observable universe can be measured, this information can allow one to calculate the number of atoms in the observable universerse:

"The present overall density of the universe is very low, roughly 9.9 × 10−30 grams per cubic centimetre. This mass-energy appears to consist of 73% dark energy, 23% cold dark matter and 4% ordinary matter. Thus the density of atoms is on the order of a single hydrogen atom for every four cubic meters of volume.[31] The properties of dark energy and dark matter are largely unknown. Dark matter gravitates as ordinary matter, and thus works to slow the expansion of the universe; by contrast, dark energy accelerates its expansion."

The observable universe contains between 1022 and 1024 stars (between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars).[40][41][42][43] To be slightly more precise, according to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, "[by] a conservative estimate.... the currently observable universe is home to of order 6 x 1022 stars"[1] These stars are organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.[44]

Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10log80.

This is a great read, and should make you feel really small.

Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it doesn't, and you are someone on here that never clicks on or reads any info [you know who you are], this should be the link you explore. It is really fun and it will blow your kids minds as well too!!! It lets you travel from the hydrogen atom all the way to the observable universe and do size comparisons in between.

Magnifying the Universe

What I wonder is if there might be influences which would change the probabilities involved. The numbers provided seem to work if every possibility has an equal chance of occurring; I don't know if there are reasons that some are more likely than others. Are certain amino acid connections more likely to occur than others? Once a certain connection occurs, does it make the next level of connections more likely to happen one way or another? Etc. etc. The numbers in the video may be accurate from a purely mathematical standpoint, but I don't know if there are other influences, physical laws or environmental factors which could radically change the numbers.

I'll get to other links later today, probably.

Oh, and UR, I haven't clicked your links about the size of the universe, but I've seen some fun size comparisons before; I realize that the universe appears to be vast almost beyond comprehension, and that matter and energy can be broken down into components ridiculously small. The scope of reality in both directions is mind-boggling. I actually see that as reason not to believe we have knowledge about any god; we can barely take in the incredible scale of things, to think we know and understand a being that could create it all seems almost crazy to me.

It should definitely leave you in awe of the Creator!!! It is almost too much for your mind to take in because we seem so insignificant. If it weren't for the fact that God loves each and every one of us, we would just be a vapor in the wind, here for such a short time, for absolutely no reason.

Casting Crowns: Who am I

Who am I, that the Lord of all the earth
Would care to know my name
Would care to feel my hurt.
Who am I, that the Bright and Morning Star
Would choose to light the way
For my ever wandering heart.

Not because of who I am
But because of what You've done
Not because of what I've done
But because of who You're

I am a flower quickly fading
Here today and gone tomorrow
A wave tossed in the ocean
A vapor in the wind
Still You hear me when I'm calling
Lord, You catch me when I'm falling
And You've told me who I am
I am Yours, I am Yours

Who am I, that the eyes that see my sin
Would look on me with love and watch me rise again.
Who am I, that the Voice that calmed the sea
Would call out through the rain
And calm the storm in me
not because of who I am
but because of what You done
not because of what I done
but because of who you are

I am the flower quickly fading
here today and gone tomorrow
a wave tossed in the ocean(ocean)
a vapor in the wind
still You hear me when I call You
Lord you catch me when I'm falling
and You told me who I am (I am)
I am Yours

not because of who I am
but because of what You done
not because of what I done
but because of who You are

I am the flower quickly fading
here today and gone tomorrow
a wave tossed in the ocean(ocean)
a vapor in the wind
still You hear me when I call You
Lord You catch me when I'm falling
and you told me who I am (I am)
I am yours, I am yours ,I am yours.

Whom shall I fear?

WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS PROSELYTIZE LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER!

 

[daws101]

don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what i said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or i will terminate this conversation.

hey - speaking of john sanford "quoting" hermann muller:


springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience - the panda's thumb

springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience

by nick matzke on february 27, 2012 12:27 pm| 150 comments




note: The springer webpage for the book was taken down about 24 hours after this post; see update post.

it looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some id/creationism into a major academic publisher, springer. The major publishers have enough problems at the moment (e.g. See the elsevier boycott), it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesn’t even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility – if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.

(a note: Even if you bought the ridiculous idea that id isn’t creationism, they’ve got john sanford, a straight-up young-earth creationist for goodness sakes, as an editor and presumably author!)

here’s the summary:



Biological information: New perspectives

series: Intelligent systems reference library, vol. 38

marks ii, r.j.; behe, m.j.; dembski, w.a.; gordon, b.l.; sanford, j.c. (eds.)

2012, 2012, xii, 549 p.

Hardcover, isbn 978-3-642-28453-3

due: March 31, 2012 $179.00





about this book

presents new perspectives regarding the nature and origin of biological information

demonstrates how our traditional ideas about biological information are collapsing under the weight of new evidence

written by leading experts in the field

in the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at cornell university to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.

The contributors to this volume use their wide-ranging expertise in the area of biological information to bring fresh insights into the explanatory difficulties that biological information raises. Going beyond the conventional scientific wisdom, which attempts to explain biological information reductionistically via chemical, genetic, and natural selective determinants, the work represented here develops novel non-reductionist approaches to biological information, looking notably to telic and self-organizational processes.

Several clear themes emerged from these research papers: 1) information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is. 2) biological information is more than the material structures that embody it. 3) conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms seem insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life. By exploring new perspectives on biological information, this volume seeks to expand, encourage, and enrich research on the nature and origin of biological information.

Content level “ research

keywords “ biological information - computational intelligence - genetical information - neo-darwinian theory

related subjects “ artificial intelligence - computational intelligence and complexity - systems biology and bioinformatics

table of contents

dynamics of charged particulate systems.- biological information and genetic theory.- theoretical molecular biology.- biological information and self-organizational complexity theory.

Speaking of sanford – if you didn’t know, he has a bizarre argument which only “makes sense” from a young-earth creationist perspective. The claim is basically that natural selection can’t remove enough bad mutations from the human population (he forgets about recombination and soft sweeps – whoops!), and therefore the human genome has been decaying rapidly ever since adam and eve (with perfect genomes, i guess) started breeding.

Do you think springer commissioned any actual population geneticists to peer-review his work and his editing? Any actual biologists at mainstream institutions anywhere? Or was it creationist engineers peer-reviewing theologians masquerading as information theoreticians? Does the volume actually address any of the detailed and technical rebuttals of the favorite id arguments? (key references summarized here) wouldn’t this be a minimal requirement, even if a publisher like springer decided to publish pseudoscientists on the everyone-deserves-to-be-heard-even-cranks theory, or whatever?

As for “a diverse group of scientists gathered at cornell university to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information”, a few posts from attendees tell us what actually happened – the conference wasn’t advertised, mainstream scientists with relevant expertise were not invited to attend, and participants were told several times to suppress their apparently otherwise overwhelming tendency to bring in their religion and do fundamentalist apologetics like they do in most other venues. It was basically just another fake id “conference” where the id fans get together and convince each other that they are staging a scientific revolution, all the while ignoring the actual science on how new genetic “information” originates.

Here is one of the “diverse group of scientists” who attended and reported on the event – sid galloway bs, m.div., who i gather is the director of the good shepherd initiative at gsi home page, which is devoted to “education, counseling, & animal-assisted apologetics.” here’s his summary of the meeting (or his talk?).

baloney.

underwhelming retort fonz....

 

[daws101]

talk origins, i already warned you about this site earlier in the thread. :d

you're running scared. The site very effectively categorizes and catalogs the falsified claims, falsified "quotes" and religious bigotries that saddle the creationist claims.

That is in part what drives your attempt to sidestep addressing what was presented to you.

no, i exposed many of their lies in this very thread.

denial at it's finest!
BTW WHO'S THEIR? OR THEM ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy


so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.

this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.

since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!



almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
is bias and not credible

Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.

I understand it perfectly, your problem is you wish I didn't .
you way overestimate your so called intelligence.
I will choose any words I wish to make my point.
that's another concept you are ignorant of , by choosing the words I did, I made them my own.
unlike yourself, who constantly butchers quotes or even more dishonestly, will paraphrase a quote, then claim that the actual quote agrees with what you claim was original to you.
example:"If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." YWC. POST#4617
THE FACT IS THAT QUOTE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE YOU COULD READ IT.
where I come from that's called taking credit for someone else's work, AKA BULLSHITING. OR BAIT AND SWITCH.

"or I will terminate this conversation"ywc
Are you gonna put me on restriction too!...MOM!

No you are actually fun so let's go over your words.

 

[Youwerecreated]

if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy


so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.

this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.

since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!



almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
is bias and not credible

Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.

I understand it perfectly, your problem is you wish I didn't .
you way overestimate your so called intelligence.
I will choose any words I wish to make my point.
that's another concept you are ignorant of , by choosing the words I did, I made them my own.
unlike yourself, who constantly butchers quotes or even more dishonestly, will paraphrase a quote, then claim that the actual quote agrees with what you claim was original to you.
example:"If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." YWC. POST#4617
THE FACT IS THAT QUOTE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE YOU COULD READ IT.
where I come from that's called taking credit for someone else's work, AKA BULLSHITING. OR BAIT AND SWITCH.

"or I will terminate this conversation"ywc
Are you gonna put me on restriction too!...MOM!

That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher.

There are 100 nucleotide substitutions misspellings per person per generation and some say as high as 300. the rate of deleterious mutations are three occurring per person per generation that is if all that DNA they call Junk DNA is junk DNA,we now know it is not junk DNA.

It is clear that most or all, of the genome is functional. Therefore, most, or all mutations in the genome must be deleterious to.


Do you understand the problem this presents for evolutionist ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Daws ,I got you to admit the mutation rate is much higher for a reason.

 

[Hollie]

Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.

I understand it perfectly, your problem is you wish I didn't .
you way overestimate your so called intelligence.
I will choose any words I wish to make my point.
that's another concept you are ignorant of , by choosing the words I did, I made them my own.
unlike yourself, who constantly butchers quotes or even more dishonestly, will paraphrase a quote, then claim that the actual quote agrees with what you claim was original to you.
example:"If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." YWC. POST#4617
THE FACT IS THAT QUOTE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE YOU COULD READ IT.
where I come from that's called taking credit for someone else's work, AKA BULLSHITING. OR BAIT AND SWITCH.

"or I will terminate this conversation"ywc
Are you gonna put me on restriction too!...MOM!

That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher.

There are 100 nucleotide substitutions misspellings per person per generation and some say as high as 300. the rate of deleterious mutations are three occurring per person per generation that is if all that DNA they call Junk DNA is junk DNA,we now know it is not junk DNA.

It is clear that most or all, of the genome is functional. Therefore, most, or all mutations in the genome must be deleterious to.


Do you understand the problem this presents for evolutionist ?

Do you understand you're not paying attention?

This was addressed by H. L. Mulller. This is just more of the nonsense furthered by your creationist ministries. copying and pasting the same nonsense doesn't make the nonsense something else.

It seems you are now "quoting" from krisna science where the same cast of discredited charlatans (John Sanford) peddle their snake oil.

http://krishnascience.info/3_How_Much_Mutations.html

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where did you go Daws ? This won't hurt much unless you are an Idelogue.

 

[daws101]

Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.

I understand it perfectly, your problem is you wish I didn't .
you way overestimate your so called intelligence.
I will choose any words I wish to make my point.
that's another concept you are ignorant of , by choosing the words I did, I made them my own.
unlike yourself, who constantly butchers quotes or even more dishonestly, will paraphrase a quote, then claim that the actual quote agrees with what you claim was original to you.
example:"If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." YWC. POST#4617
THE FACT IS THAT QUOTE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE YOU COULD READ IT.
where I come from that's called taking credit for someone else's work, AKA BULLSHITING. OR BAIT AND SWITCH.

"or I will terminate this conversation"ywc
Are you gonna put me on restriction too!...MOM!

That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher.

There are 100 nucleotide substitutions misspellings per person per generation and some say as high as 300. the rate of deleterious mutations are three occurring per person per generation that is if all that DNA they call Junk DNA is junk DNA,we now know it is not junk DNA.

It is clear that most or all, of the genome is functional. Therefore, most, or all mutations in the genome must be deleterious to.


Do you understand the problem this presents for evolutionist ?

see post #6186.

 

[daws101]

Daws ,I got you to admit the mutation rate is much higher for a reason.

since I did not admit anything about the mutation being higher (another lie) ..you did :That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher."ywc

another lie! this:"it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy "

is not an "evolutionist" quote it's from one of your favorite sites: your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent

grow the fuck up...
you've had your ass handed to you again. stop being such a pussy and take it with some grace.

 

[daws101]

Where did you go Daws ? This won't hurt much unless you are an Idelogue.

that's Ideologue

Definition of IDEOLOGUE
1: an impractical idealist : theorist
2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
if that does not discribe, you nothing does.
now might be a good time to stop imitating an intellectual.

 

[UltimateReality]

YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE&feature=player_embedded]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

Daws ,I got you to admit the mutation rate is much higher for a reason.

since I did not admit anything about the mutation being higher (another lie) ..you did :That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher."ywc

another lie! this:"it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy "

is not an "evolutionist" quote it's from one of your favorite sites: your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent

grow the fuck up...
you've had your ass handed to you again. stop being such a pussy and take it with some grace.

HJ Muller is an atheist and believed in evolution.

Someone who pretends to be well educated in the sciences and are not part of the science community would argue that the mutation rate is much lower then HJ Muller proposed of 0.5 mutations per person per generation that would destroy the human race. Well we know that is not true and the science community have accepted the high mutation rate especially after the Genome project. That junk DNA is not junk after all.

So you are making an attempt to make an old argument from your anti God sites

The science community know that the high mutation rate is a problem for their theory of macro evolution. Now are you ready to answer why ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where did you go Daws ? This won't hurt much unless you are an Idelogue.

that's Ideologue

Definition of IDEOLOGUE
1: an impractical idealist : theorist
2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
if that does not discribe, you nothing does.
now might be a good time to stop imitating an intellectual.

Waiting for you to answer the question daws. Can you imagine how many mutations each person from each generation have now that we know the junk DNA has been refuted by the genome project.

I will wait for your answer to my question before proceeding.

 

[Hollie]

Daws ,I got you to admit the mutation rate is much higher for a reason.

since I did not admit anything about the mutation being higher (another lie) ..you did :That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher."ywc

another lie! this:"it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy "

is not an "evolutionist" quote it's from one of your favorite sites: your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent

grow the fuck up...
you've had your ass handed to you again. stop being such a pussy and take it with some grace.

HJ Muller is an atheist and believed in evolution.

Someone who pretends to be well educated in the sciences and are not part of the science community would argue that the mutation rate is much lower then HJ Muller proposed of 0.5 mutations per person per generation that would destroy the human race. Well we know that is not true and the science community have accepted the high mutation rate especially after the Genome project. That junk DNA is not junk after all.

So you are making an attempt to make an old argument from your anti God sites

The science community know that the high mutation rate is a problem for their theory of macro evolution. Now are you ready to answer why ?

Muller obviously believed in evolution. That clearly took you by surprise when I provided several statements if his several pages back. You had falsely sought to use fabricated "quotes" attributed to Muller which quickly got you to backstepping.

Otherwise, do you have any clue just how pompous you appear when you attempt to speak on behalf of the science community?

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.

Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube

I will watch it when I get home I am out of town again and i'm usimg my phone.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.

Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube

Great video UR. I am a little guilty of accepting some things on blind faith. If I don't possess an answer for a question I should simply live it at I don't know. God has given us plenty of evidence to believe in him and that he exists.

I like how he touched on how essential things are for life whether from the universe or things in living organisms. There is no left over parts and all the parts must be present to function properly. Does not mean we can't get by because all parts are not present and funtion properly. That has been my argument many times when debating naturalism and design.

Naturalism fails explaining how these processes came into existence through chance or accidents. I agree with the Dr., that things were and are created for a purpose. That is the evidence for us to believe he exists. That is true at the end of expelled when stein and dawkins were talking,dawkins refused to let go of his view things must have evolved even though he has no explanation how it happened.

I believe as the science community uncovers more and more evidence there will still be no rational explanation for macroevolution and naturalism it's being contradicted by the current evidence.

 

[UltimateReality]

YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.

Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube

Great video UR. I am a little guilty of accepting some things on blind faith. If I don't possess an answer for a question I should simply live it at I don't know. God has given us plenty of evidence to believe in him and that he exists.

I like how he touched on how essential things are for life whether from the universe or things in living organisms. There is no left over parts and all the parts must be present to function properly. Does not mean we can't get by because all parts are not present and funtion properly. That has been my argument many times when debating naturalism and design.

Naturalism fails explaining how these processes came into existence through chance or accidents. I agree with the Dr., that things were and are created for a purpose. That is the evidence for us to believe he exists. That is true at the end of expelled when stein and dawkins were talking,dawkins refused to let go of his view things must have evolved even though he has no explanation how it happened.

I believe as the science community uncovers more and more evidence there will still be no rational explanation for macroevolution and naturalism it's being contradicted by the current evidence.

I will go one step farther and say that I believe in my lifetime people will look back on Darwin's theory and wonder how so many intelligent people could have fallen for it and they will ask why it took so long to realize it was garbage.

I was sitting on the patio having my coffee this morning, looking down at my feet. They are starting to show some wear from 46 years of use. This lead me to the thought of how even though my body is made of matter, it is not "me". I think we all have this innate feeling and need to be loved, not for the matter that makes us up, not our shell, but just for who we REALLY are. We really consist of the consciousness that science has so far been unable to link to chemical reactions in the brain. I had this overwhelming feeling that even when my body is burned up, somehow I will still go on.

But then again, maybe that is just evolution playing a cruel joke on me, because the realization that there really is no point to all of this and someday I will cease to exist ENTIRELY would impede my will to survive.

 

[UltimateReality]

When ID theorists speak of it requiring more faith to be a Darwinist, this is what they are talking about. The belief that this intricate network of molecular machines happened by chance or accident, and continued to develop by chance or accident, into the complex factories we find, goes against any intelligent or logical thought. When I watch this, the folks claiming "it just happened" seem to be the real fools. Darwinian thought requires a "suspension of disbelief" because the logical response (especially after watching this video) to the claims randomness produced these tiny factories is a resounding "NO WAY!" Darwinists must suspend their inner disbelief in order to accept the un-scientific, crazy claims of molecular evolution. Even the evolutionist narrator sometimes seems uncomfortable when he sprinkles the Darwin Dogma into the video, like he has not yet reconciled what the actual science should be convincing him of with the materialistic cross he is committed to bear.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMPXu6GF18M&feature=player_embedded]Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]