Creationists

[Hollie]

What Crick doesn't tell you is the odds of carrying out 43 "might haves" in specific order with time constraints. Yeah, cause that doesn't take faith!!!

That's correct it doesn't require any faith.

Whereas your certainty that a "Designer" magicked up everything absolutely does.

Nonsesnse. Your denial that Intelligent Design Theory is just Creationism dresses in the vocabulary of science is the intellectually dishonest trickery being perpetrated here.

"... by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

I know you'd rather change the subject, but why must I explain how recording heads transfer signal to magnetic tape?

Why do I have to explain AGAIN that DNA cannot be a "code" in the equivocating way you retards insist it is?

There is no science going on in Intelligent Design Theory; it is ALL religion.

Then do it!

I didn't quite understand the question. Can you repeat this?

Sure!

Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity. Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened. You have presented your strawman argument before about the "abstractness" of the English alphabet to argue against DNA "code", which I'm sure you just read on an atheist rebuttal website and you really had no understanding of what you were arguing. ID does not claim what you keep strawmanning about code. It claims DNA contains complex information or Shannon information, but it also claims information that specifies something, which distinguishes it from the gibberish you want to infer "just happened" in the primordial soup.

Your entire post above is quite the joke. Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.

I'm afraid that Meyers has only regurgitated the same foolish creationist claims that have been debunked repeatedly. Yet another piece of crooked timber holding up the fraud of creationism.

Signature in the Cell: self-contradiction and repetition - The Panda's Thumb


Of late the IDists have been complaining about the dearth of reviews by ID skeptics of Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell. I agree, it would be nice if there were more reviews out there, but (a) the arguments boil down to the same old fallacious “improbability of assembly of functional sequence all at once from scratch by brute chance” creationist argument that dates back to at least the 1960s creation science literature, and (b) the book is tedious and repetitive, basically making the same unsupported assertions again and again in slightly different ways. I.e. information comes from intelligence and is too improbable to explain by chance, therefore intelligence! The actual known origin of the vast majority of genetic “information” – DNA duplication followed by mutation and selection is (1) almost completely ignored by Meyer and (2) directly refutes Meyer’s key claim, which is that the only known explanation of new information is intelligence. So in one sense, there is not a heck of a lot to review in Meyer’s book. If you are a sufficient wonk about the ID debate, there is some interesting stuff about Meyer’s highly revisionist account of his own history and the history of the ID movement, and there is an interesting study to be made of the science that Meyer left out of his book, but that makes for a big project, so it will be awhile before I or someone else get it out there.

 

[UltimateReality]

That's correct it doesn't require any faith.

Whereas your certainty that a "Designer" magicked up everything absolutely does.

Nonsesnse. Your denial that Intelligent Design Theory is just Creationism dresses in the vocabulary of science is the intellectually dishonest trickery being perpetrated here.

"... by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

I know you'd rather change the subject, but why must I explain how recording heads transfer signal to magnetic tape?

Why do I have to explain AGAIN that DNA cannot be a "code" in the equivocating way you retards insist it is?

There is no science going on in Intelligent Design Theory; it is ALL religion.

Then do it!

Sure!

Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity. Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened. You have presented your strawman argument before about the "abstractness" of the English alphabet to argue against DNA "code", which I'm sure you just read on an atheist rebuttal website and you really had no understanding of what you were arguing. ID does not claim what you keep strawmanning about code. It claims DNA contains complex information or Shannon information, but it also claims information that specifies something, which distinguishes it from the gibberish you want to infer "just happened" in the primordial soup.

Your entire post above is quite the joke. Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.

I'm afraid that Meyers has only regurgitated the same foolish creationist claims that have been debunked repeatedly. Yet another piece of crooked timber holding up the fraud of creationism.

Signature in the Cell: self-contradiction and repetition - The Panda's Thumb


Of late the IDists have been complaining about the dearth of reviews by ID skeptics of Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell. I agree, it would be nice if there were more reviews out there, but (a) the arguments boil down to the same old fallacious “improbability of assembly of functional sequence all at once from scratch by brute chance” creationist argument that dates back to at least the 1960s creation science literature, and (b) the book is tedious and repetitive, basically making the same unsupported assertions again and again in slightly different ways. I.e. information comes from intelligence and is too improbable to explain by chance, therefore intelligence! The actual known origin of the vast majority of genetic “information” – DNA duplication followed by mutation and selection is (1) almost completely ignored by Meyer and (2) directly refutes Meyer’s key claim, which is that the only known explanation of new information is intelligence. So in one sense, there is not a heck of a lot to review in Meyer’s book. If you are a sufficient wonk about the ID debate, there is some interesting stuff about Meyer’s highly revisionist account of his own history and the history of the ID movement, and there is an interesting study to be made of the science that Meyer left out of his book, but that makes for a big project, so it will be awhile before I or someone else get it out there.

This review is so far off the mark with mis-information it is blatantly obvious that whomever you cut and pasted this from obviously hasn't read the entire book.

 

[LOki]

"Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin's mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we've presented experimental evidence that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.

We completely agree with Moran that this exact transition never happened in the history of enzyme evolution (and said as much in our paper). But evidently we expect more of Darwin's theory than he does. In particular, we expect it to conform to the established norm of offering universal principles instead of just-so stories."

Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime? - Evolution News & Views

Soon folks are going to start waking up to the fantasy that is the TOE. People will look back and wonder how so many educated people (Daws, Loki, and Hollie excluded) could have fallen for the Darwinian myth.

I find it just hilarious that you deny so rabidly that Intelligent Design Theory has NOTHING to say regarding the identity of the "Designer" it posits; that it is in NO WAY Christian Creationism dressed up in scientific vocabulary, yet you cite from a source that explicitly claims that one of it's governing goals is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

It claims quite clearly that, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

 

[Hollie]

Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity. Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened. You have presented your strawman argument before about the "abstractness" of the English alphabet to argue against DNA "code", which I'm sure you just read on an atheist rebuttal website and you really had no understanding of what you were arguing. ID does not claim what you keep strawmanning about code. It claims DNA contains complex information or Shannon information, but it also claims information that specifies something, which distinguishes it from the gibberish you want to infer "just happened" in the primordial soup.

Your entire post above is quite the joke. Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.

I'm afraid that Meyers has only regurgitated the same foolish creationist claims that have been debunked repeatedly. Yet another piece of crooked timber holding up the fraud of creationism.

Signature in the Cell: self-contradiction and repetition - The Panda's Thumb


Of late the IDists have been complaining about the dearth of reviews by ID skeptics of Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell. I agree, it would be nice if there were more reviews out there, but (a) the arguments boil down to the same old fallacious “improbability of assembly of functional sequence all at once from scratch by brute chance” creationist argument that dates back to at least the 1960s creation science literature, and (b) the book is tedious and repetitive, basically making the same unsupported assertions again and again in slightly different ways. I.e. information comes from intelligence and is too improbable to explain by chance, therefore intelligence! The actual known origin of the vast majority of genetic “information” – DNA duplication followed by mutation and selection is (1) almost completely ignored by Meyer and (2) directly refutes Meyer’s key claim, which is that the only known explanation of new information is intelligence. So in one sense, there is not a heck of a lot to review in Meyer’s book. If you are a sufficient wonk about the ID debate, there is some interesting stuff about Meyer’s highly revisionist account of his own history and the history of the ID movement, and there is an interesting study to be made of the science that Meyer left out of his book, but that makes for a big project, so it will be awhile before I or someone else get it out there.

This review is so far off the mark with mis-information it is blatantly obvious that whomever you cut and pasted this from obviously hasn't read the entire book.

It was predictable that you would reject any criticism of Meyer and his unscientific methods. As one of the darlings of the Flat Earth crowd, he draws a certain amount of worship among that contingent.

As we saw with Meyers' work and with virtually all of the creationist ministry material, peer review was absent, and for obvious reasons.

When is the last time anyone read an "intelligent design" study issued by a biology department at a leading accredited university? Contrast that with the number of studies related to the biology of evolution from those departments. Creationists will launch goofy conspiracy theories suggesting reasons for that but there is simply no rational reason to suggest that there is a vast political conspiracy of literally thousands of scientists, across every major university, and hundreds of smaller schools, over a hundred years, in every country on the planet. A simpler and comprehensive explanation is that while we still haven't figured out all the mechanics and the precise history of evolution on the planet (just like we haven't resolved exactly how gravity works) there isn't any serious doubt among actual biologists that evolution has happened and is happening (just like there is no serious doubt among physicists that gravity does actually happen.)

That's because "intelligent design creationism" is not a science. It starts with an unprovable and improble hypothesis and then builds what is nothing more than a pyramid scheme of polemics around that unprovable hypothesis. I haven't read anything in the intelligent design literature that is a scientific process and reviews of the religious dogma wrapped in a burqa and pressed by Meyer as "science" is consistent only with a religious agenda.

 

[Hollie]

Signature in the Cell?

Signature in the Cell? - The Panda's Thumb

(The following is a follow-up to a comment I made in this thread: Signature in the Cell: self-contradiction and repetition - The Panda's Thumb)

There is much abuzz in the ID-o-sphere regarding Stephen Meyer’s new book, “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design”. The book is a lengthy recapitulation of the main themes that ID proponents have been talking about for the past 15 years or so; indeed, there will be precious little that is new for seasoned veterans of the internet discussions and staged debates that have occurred over the years.

Long though the book is, it is built around one central theme - the idea that the genetic code harbors evidence for design. Indeed, the genetic code - the triplet-amino acid correspondence that is seen in life - is the “Signature in the Cell”. Meyer contends that the genetic code cannot have originated without the intervention of intelligence, that physics and chemistry cannot on their own accords account for the origin of the code.

It is this context that a recent paper by Yarus et al. (Yarus M, Widmann JJ, Knight R, 2009, RNA-Amino Acid Binding: A Stereochemical Era for the Genetic Code, J Mol Evol 69:406-429) (Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 69, Number 5 - SpringerLink) merits discussion. This paper sums up several avenues of investigation into the mode of RNA-amino acid interaction, and places the body of work into an interesting light with respect to the origin of the genetic code. The bottom line, in terms that relate to Meyer’s book, is that chemistry and physics (to use Meyer’s phraseology) can account for the origin of the genetic code. In other words, the very heart of Meyer’s thesis (and his book) is wrong.

 

[UltimateReality]

"Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin's mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we've presented experimental evidence that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.

We completely agree with Moran that this exact transition never happened in the history of enzyme evolution (and said as much in our paper). But evidently we expect more of Darwin's theory than he does. In particular, we expect it to conform to the established norm of offering universal principles instead of just-so stories."

Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime? - Evolution News & Views

Soon folks are going to start waking up to the fantasy that is the TOE. People will look back and wonder how so many educated people (Daws, Loki, and Hollie excluded) could have fallen for the Darwinian myth.

I find it just hilarious that you deny so rabidly that Intelligent Design Theory has NOTHING to say regarding the identity of the "Designer" it posits; that it is in NO WAY Christian Creationism dressed up in scientific vocabulary, yet you cite from a source that explicitly claims that one of it's governing goals is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

It claims quite clearly that, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Please point me to the experiment that uses "ordinary chemical reactions" to produce highly specified molecular machines that not only build proteins, but make incredibly accurate copies of the original information in the information carrying molecule. And while you are at it, please address the enigma of how the very machines that make the copies or build the proteins require the very code they are using to exist in the first place? If there ever was a chicken/egg problem, this is it. I'll be waiting.

 

[Moldth6]

Where ever did you get that idea? I am a christian and know the bible fairly well and I can tell you now the earth is far, far older than 6,000 years. Who told you that? I am new to your board. Look forward to discussing this with you. - Moldth6

 

[LOki]

MYTH #1: Intelligent Design (ID) is just a fancy name for Creationism.

The true story: Intelligent Design theory is not a form of, nor is it synonymous with “creationism.” Rather, it is an over-arching scientific theory that disputes wholly naturalistic/materialistic accounts of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. As such it is an indispensable ally for those who espouse various creation models. ID makes NO CLAIM about the age of the earth.

FACT: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)

MYTH #2: ID has been dis-proven by the fossil record, which supports common descent.

The true story: ID does not rule out the theory of common descent, nor does it support it. It is true that some advocates of ID also doubt the integrity of the theory of common descent, but that question is completely separate from ID theory, strictly speaking. One of the leading scientists in the ID movement, biochemist Michael Behe, Ph.D., is comfortable with the theory of common descent. Other ID scientists are more skeptical of common descent, such as biologist Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

FACT: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

MYTH #3: ID claims that the “intelligent agent” had to supernaturally intervene in natural history over and over again.

The true story: ID’s claim is much more modest. ID simply states that there are characteristics of the universe and of living systems that are BEST EXPLAINED by a designing intelligence. ID is not “interventionist” as many theistic evolutionists (and atheistic evolutionists) like to claim. The idea of a designing intelligence steadily and purposefully guiding the development of life at the sub-atomic level is compatible with ID, but that particular scenario is not required by ID, either.

FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

MYTH #4: ID uses a disguised form of the “God of the gaps” fallacy.

The true story: ID does not say “We don’t yet know how life emerged from non-life, therefore an intelligence must have done it.” Rather, it makes a two-fold argument: 1) Neo-Darwinian explanations for the emergence and divergence of life are sorely insufficient in their explanatory power and 2) there are features of nature, such as the specified complexity of the digital information in DNA, that are best explained by intelligent agency. We already know from direct experience how to detect intelligence in other branches of science, so inferring intelligence based on the same type of observed effects is completely reasonable. In scientific practice, we infer the existing cause that is KNOWN to produce the effect in question. Since biochemistry contains information, ID theorists infer that there must be an informer, because there are no other sources of information. Ironically, whenever a materialist says, “We don’t yet know how life emerged from non-life, but one day science will explain it,” they are actually using the Science of the Gaps fallacy.

FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

MYTH #5: ID research has not produced peer-reviewed literature.

The true story: There are more than 50 peer-reviewed papers that have come out of ID research. A list has been compiled HERE. An important article on this topic can be found HERE.

FACT: This is pretty much a list of FAIL.

"Unable to convince the scientific establishment of the merits of their views, creationists have long been engaged in the project of constructing a counterestablishment, which mimics — or perhaps the mot juste is “apes” — not only peer-reviewed journals but also professional societies, textbook publishers, media organizations, natural history museums, and graduate programs at accredited universities."--The Latest “Intelligent Design” Journal

 

[LOki]

As I have stated in the past, you get the prize for using the most words to say absolutely nothing. You still, after all this time, don't seem to grasp or understand that have invalidated your strawman accusations. All your "much ado about nothing" cannot conceal that fact to anyone with a 3rd grade education who can read. Nice try though.

As was explained clearly to you earlier, your capacity to C/P from wikipedia does not in any way change the fact that your willingness to ignore the inconvenient content of the support you brought to bear to defend yourself, and your disingenuous equivocations you apply to the rest results in strawman arguments.

Also, you have proven time and again you are totally inept at drawing comparisons.

Really? What comparisons have i drawn that you find issue with?

The reason I mentioned the multi-universe theory and quantum mechanics is because these are area's of science that can't stay true to the naturalistic and materialistic party line you so vehemently defend.

Oh, I see--YOU drew a comparison. YOU were inept.

For science to progress, sometimes outside the box thinking is required. What I find interesting is that all of the posters on here who argue against ID prove time and again that it is not science that drives their belief system, but their materialistic belief system that drives their science. These folks never make good scientists because they arrogantly think they already know the outcome before they begin.

This is just pathological projection. You are the asshat that insists upon applying the premise of a Designer, to vailidate the evidence of a Designer, that demonstrates the existence of a Designer.

AND YOU INSIST THIS IS SCIENCE!

Your denialism is a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unconditional certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.

While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unconditional "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

Finally, although it has been pointed out to you numerous times, you continue the intellectually dishonest tactic of switching to Creationism in the middle of your argument.

That's a bullshit accusation, considering the irrefutable evidence that demonstrates that Intelligent Design Theory is Christian Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science.

You seem totally incapable of distinguishing the differences in the two concepts although they have been explained to you too many times to count.

You are in denial that Intelligent Design Theory has been thoroughly outed as Christian Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science.

If you want to address your perceived deficiencies in ID Theory, please stick to that. Don't play your intellectually dishonest game of peppering Creationism, which is a religious belief that requires faith, in with your response.

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)

This is your typical strawman tactic that you apply when you are losing.

Lolsome!

I have never argued that the Bible or my religious belief system is anything but that. While I have stated I believe it does not contradict science, I have never made many of the claims you attribute to me in your strawman rebuttals.

Since I quote you directly, you make the exact claims I say you do.

I think you, like Hollie, are either too stupid, or too intellectually dishonest, to make the distinction between myself and YWC.

There is no meaningful distinction to be made, except the one I made earlier--that creationists who are openly so, are just a little bit more intellectually honest than Intelligent Design Theorists.

 

[LOki]

Quote: Originally Posted by LOki
"This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life."

Strawman.

So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.

Oh really?

How does this grab you?

So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?

This is more of his intellectual dishonesty and trickery.

Really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.

Oh really?

How does this grab you?

So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?

He knows good and well that I know this is not a main tenet of evolutionary theory, but it is certainly a a goal of researchers. TOE researchers are dedicating money and time in an attempt to prove common ancestry and one of the goals of that research would be to identify genetically, the Last Universal Ancestor for as far back as the evidence would lead. In his quote above, he is dishonestly insinuating I have made this claim.

Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.

Oh really?

How does this grab you?

So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?

I never did.

Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.

Oh really?

How does this grab you?

So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?

He also dishonestly portrays himself to be confused that my question asking him to identify the single-celled organism is somehow a statement by me.

Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.

Oh really?

How does this grab you?

So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?

He knows that I knew the answer to he question when I asked it. Researchers have not been able to yet identify a specific single-cell organism they claim all life descended from.

The fact that you knew the answer to he question when you asked it, yet asked it ANYWAY as if failing to identify the specific single-cell organism in question is a failure of evolutionary theory, exposes the exact strawman you deny you made.

But as you have seen demonstrated over and over by Loki in 600 pages, he does not like to be backed in a corner by being asked to respond to a question where the answer is "I don't know".

Spoken right after I said, "How the fuck should I know?"

Rather than admit that science, and more importantly, HE doesn't have the answer, he plays the intellectually dishonest game of distraction and fallacy accusation. Either that, or with all his thesaurus supplied flowery language, he really just doesn't get it. Either way, he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly foolish.

It is only appropriate that you should feel as helplessly out-classed by my vocabulary, as you are out-classed by my happy capacity to expose each of your purposefully distracting fallacies--including this latest (and lamest), "He uses big werdz cuz he thinks he's so smart" gambit.

I will not subject myself to his dishonest games anymore after I complete my responses to his current posts. Arguing with fools will merely give you gray hair and to what outcome?

You just get exposed for being the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are. Your surrender is accepted.

 

[LOki]

I find it rather hilarious that you wish to change the subject rather than face the fact you've been ... how did you put it? .... Oh yes! OWNED.

Please point me to the experiment that uses "ordinary chemical reactions" to produce highly specified molecular machines that not only build proteins, but make incredibly accurate copies of the original information in the information carrying molecule.

Which gene-splicing paper do you wish me to cite? Which denial of the existence of GMOs are you going to trot out as your rebuttal?

And while you are at it, please address the enigma of how the very machines that make the copies or build the proteins require the very code they are using to exist in the first place? If there ever was a chicken/egg problem, this is it. I'll be waiting.

How many times must the hypotheses of abiogenesis be presented to you?

 

[ima]

Where ever did you get that idea? I am a christian and know the bible fairly well and I can tell you now the earth is far, far older than 6,000 years. Who told you that? I am new to your board. Look forward to discussing this with you. - Moldth6

If you think that the world is much older than 6000 years, then you're not a real christian.

PS Jesus was gay.

 

[UltimateReality]

MYTH #1: Intelligent Design (ID) is just a fancy name for Creationism.

The true story: Intelligent Design theory is not a form of, nor is it synonymous with “creationism.” Rather, it is an over-arching scientific theory that disputes wholly naturalistic/materialistic accounts of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. As such it is an indispensable ally for those who espouse various creation models. ID makes NO CLAIM about the age of the earth.

FACT: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)

MYTH #2: ID has been dis-proven by the fossil record, which supports common descent.

The true story: ID does not rule out the theory of common descent, nor does it support it. It is true that some advocates of ID also doubt the integrity of the theory of common descent, but that question is completely separate from ID theory, strictly speaking. One of the leading scientists in the ID movement, biochemist Michael Behe, Ph.D., is comfortable with the theory of common descent. Other ID scientists are more skeptical of common descent, such as biologist Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

FACT: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

MYTH #4: ID uses a disguised form of the “God of the gaps” fallacy.

The true story: ID does not say “We don’t yet know how life emerged from non-life, therefore an intelligence must have done it.” Rather, it makes a two-fold argument: 1) Neo-Darwinian explanations for the emergence and divergence of life are sorely insufficient in their explanatory power and 2) there are features of nature, such as the specified complexity of the digital information in DNA, that are best explained by intelligent agency. We already know from direct experience how to detect intelligence in other branches of science, so inferring intelligence based on the same type of observed effects is completely reasonable. In scientific practice, we infer the existing cause that is KNOWN to produce the effect in question. Since biochemistry contains information, ID theorists infer that there must be an informer, because there are no other sources of information. Ironically, whenever a materialist says, “We don’t yet know how life emerged from non-life, but one day science will explain it,” they are actually using the Science of the Gaps fallacy.

FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

MYTH #5: ID research has not produced peer-reviewed literature.

The true story: There are more than 50 peer-reviewed papers that have come out of ID research. A list has been compiled HERE. An important article on this topic can be found HERE.

FACT: This is pretty much a list of FAIL.

"Unable to convince the scientific establishment of the merits of their views, creationists have long been engaged in the project of constructing a counterestablishment, which mimics — or perhaps the mot juste is “apes” — not only peer-reviewed journals but also professional societies, textbook publishers, media organizations, natural history museums, and graduate programs at accredited universities."--The Latest “Intelligent Design” Journal

I see you are continuing with your intellectual dishonesty with some confirmation bias quote mining. However, these quotes don't apply to ID as a whole.

 

[UltimateReality]

Quote: Originally Posted by LOki
"This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life."

Strawman.

So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.

Oh really?

How does this grab you?

So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?

Really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

Oh really?

How does this grab you?​

Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

Oh really?

How does this grab you?​

Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

Oh really?

How does this grab you?​

Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

Oh really?

How does this grab you?​

The fact that you knew the answer to he question when you asked it, yet asked it ANYWAY as if failing to identify the specific single-cell organism in question is a failure of evolutionary theory, exposes the exact strawman you deny you made.

Spoken right after I said, "How the fuck should I know?"

Rather than admit that science, and more importantly, HE doesn't have the answer, he plays the intellectually dishonest game of distraction and fallacy accusation. Either that, or with all his thesaurus supplied flowery language, he really just doesn't get it. Either way, he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly foolish.

It is only appropriate that you should feel as helplessly out-classed by my vocabulary, as you are out-classed by my happy capacity to expose each of your purposefully distracting fallacies--including this latest (and lamest), "He uses big werdz cuz he thinks he's so smart" gambit.

I will not subject myself to his dishonest games anymore after I complete my responses to his current posts. Arguing with fools will merely give you gray hair and to what outcome?

You just get exposed for being the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are. Your surrender is accepted.

Loki, I am sorry. But for someone who pretends to be so intelligent, you are probably one of the more ignorant posters I've ever encountered. I am astonished that you would keep repeating the question asking you to identify the single cell organism as if: 1) My question is somehow a statement of fact and 2) in the very same post you are responding to, I explain I already knew the answer to the question and you did too. Your foolish pride just won't let you say "I don't know". No surprise here you follow the brainwashing technique used so much by materialist. Repeating the question 50 times will not make your assertion this was a claim (and not simply a question) any more valid. All it does is make you look like a 3-year-old child having a temper tantrum and is proof positive of your mental midgetry.

 

[UltimateReality]

I find it rather hilarious that you wish to change the subject rather than face the fact you've been ... how did you put it? .... Oh yes! OWNED.

Please point me to the experiment that uses "ordinary chemical reactions" to produce highly specified molecular machines that not only build proteins, but make incredibly accurate copies of the original information in the information carrying molecule.

Which gene-splicing paper do you wish me to cite? Which denial of the existence of GMOs are you going to trot out as your rebuttal?

And while you are at it, please address the enigma of how the very machines that make the copies or build the proteins require the very code they are using to exist in the first place? If there ever was a chicken/egg problem, this is it. I'll be waiting.

How many times must the hypotheses of abiogenesis be presented to you?

How curious. Still no link?? Please, no fairy tales with 43 "must haves", "might haves", and "could haves". I want to see an experiment where they produce a molecular machine that can make copies of information contained in the dna.

 

[daws101]

Wow, post up a couple of pics and the peanut gallery goes crazy!!!! ... projecting all their own sick, twisted, and deviant materialistic behaviors on me. Ewwwwww! Gross.

says the faux Christian materialist !

 

[daws101]

Most everyone is grossed out by you. Juvenile behavior is expected of 12 year olds but your behavior is a pathology.

You're just disgusting. Get help.

What's strange is that during you frequent episodes of masturbation, is that the image you pleasure yourself to?

Hmmm. I'm the disgusting one? The things you are picturing in your mind are making me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. I will require you to cease exposing your disgusting thoughts on a public forum.

you're in no postion to require or request anything from any other poster on this thread ..you and your BUDDY YWC.. HAVE SPEWED MORE TWISTED AND NAUSEA EVOKING HATE THEN ANY TEN OTHER POSTERS COMBINED

 

[UltimateReality]

Wow, post up a couple of pics and the peanut gallery goes crazy!!!! ... projecting all their own sick, twisted, and deviant materialistic behaviors on me. Ewwwwww! Gross.

says the faux Christian materialist !

Please explain your flawed logic on how having wealth precludes you from following Christ. Please don't quote mine Bible verses taking them out of context.

 

[UltimateReality]

Most everyone is grossed out by you. Juvenile behavior is expected of 12 year olds but your behavior is a pathology.

You're just disgusting. Get help.

What's strange is that during you frequent episodes of masturbation, is that the image you pleasure yourself to?

Hmmm. I'm the disgusting one? The things you are picturing in your mind are making me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. I will require you to cease exposing your disgusting thoughts on a public forum.

you're in no postion to require or request anything from any other poster on this thread ..you and your BUDDY YWC.. HAVE SPEWED MORE TWISTED AND NAUSEA EVOKING HATE THEN ANY TEN OTHER POSTERS COMBINED

Daws, please quit dreaming buddy. Please post up some of my "hate" quotes that caused you to get nauseated. Please post pics of you taking Mylanta.

My statement with the term "require" is just parroting back Hollie's original same demand. Just pointing out Rugged's silliness of thinking she has any chance of forcing the behavior of a complete stranger on an internet forum.

Guess you missed it so I will require you to go back to sleep now.

 

[daws101]

Still avoiding the questions put to you ?

You're still dodging and sidestepping any attempt at addressing why you can't account for your gods?

Hollie I don't believe in gods,I believe in the the one God creator of all. Do you actually read what I post ? I said my beliefs are based in Faith but I do see things in nature as being designed and not products of chance or accident. That to me is evidence of the creator.

If you ask this again I will ignore it.Now present your evidence that living organisms are a product of natural processes mainly the first life form that started this thing you call evolution.

ONCE AGAIN YOU MAKE CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT PROVABLE
YOUR BELIEF PROVES NOTHING BUT BELIEF
BELIEF IS SUBJECTIVE ,BY ANY STANDARD IT'S NOT EVIDENCE.
FOR YOUR FAITH TO BE EVIDENCE IT HAS TO BE QUANTIFIED (to make explicit the logical quantity of )
Your childish threat to ignore questions about presenting hard proof of your god is denial at it's most ignorant.
it is however highly damaging evidence that you cannot produce any of the proofs you need to make your pov valid.