Creationists

[Hollie]

Everything has a limit to adapting and everytime it mutates it can get stronger but eventually the mutations will make the virus weaker.

That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.

Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".

Hollie as usual you are so wrong. The virus takes over the host organism and that is what leads to the virus mutating and it can become stronger or weaker but over time the mutations will have an adverse reaction on both the organism and virus.

As usual, you define why you were never a molecular biologist. Try defining your terms a bit more succinctly. A virus does not 'take over' the host organism. A bit less Hollywood movie and a bit more biology would be helpful.

 

[Glensather]

FYI:

Conservative Christian Superhero Pat Robertson doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Hollie]

So why did some ID god make shit that would hurt us like viruses? Is he not too bright?

I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.

The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.

How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man. You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?

So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?

 

[UltimateReality]

So why did some ID god make shit that would hurt us like viruses? Is he not too bright?

I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.

The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.

How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man. You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?

So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?

Are you saying you have an innate sense of morality that would convict you that all these things are bad? Why is dying bad? It happens to everything on the planet eventually. Why do you seem so angry about this? Where does your sense that this is wrong come from if we are a product of evolution and the things you speak of are just part of this crazy, random accident we call life on earth?

 

[newpolitics]

Daws are you still trying deny this planet is a closed system ?

As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.

By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.

An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.

In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.

In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.

The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.

Who cares. I was mistaken too, but not conceptually. As I said, a closed system isn't really a closed system, as one might think upon hearing the word "closed." Energy is allowed in and out. It is only closed with respect to matter.

The point is, you are wrong in your expectation that Earth should expect increased entropy. It is not an isolated system. You have misquoted the 2nd LOTD's.

The more you continue on this path of nitpicking, you more you reveal that you were wrong as well.

 

[UltimateReality]

As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.

By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.

An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.

In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.

In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.

The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.

Who cares. I was mistaken too, but not conceptually. As I said, a closed system isn't really a closed system, as one might think upon hearing the word "closed." Energy is allowed in and out. It is only closed with respect to matter.

The point is, you are wrong in your expectation that Earth should expect increased entropy. It is not an isolated system. You have misquoted the 2nd LOTD's.

The more you continue on this path of nitpicking, you more you reveal that you were wrong as well.

Response to the Berkley article?

 

[newpolitics]

The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.

Who cares. I was mistaken too, but not conceptually. As I said, a closed system isn't really a closed system, as one might think upon hearing the word "closed." Energy is allowed in and out. It is only closed with respect to matter.

The point is, you are wrong in your expectation that Earth should expect increased entropy. It is not an isolated system. You have misquoted the 2nd LOTD's.

The more you continue on this path of nitpicking, you more you reveal that you were wrong as well.

Response to the Berkley article?

Yeah, just wait. But basically, you didn't say much.

 

[newpolitics]

Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.

I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".

NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)

I would appreciate it if you try and do the same when posting articles for reference to an argument you have presented if possible. Sometimes in the case of ID theory, it is not possible. Your Atheist websites, just like some Creationists websites, are many times clouded by their agenda, which gives them a slant. Your article above would have you believe Historical Science is on the same level as Emprical Science. It is not. Neither evolution nor ID theory will ever live up to the same burden of proof that the empirical sciences can and most Historical Scientists would protest if you held them to the same level of proof. I thought it fitting to quote this article from Berkley, since it is obviously as Lib as colleges come, and no one can say I am using biased sources.

"B. Formal Sciences
1. Logic and mathematics
2. Both define their own universe.
3. Because they do, they can initially speak of absolute "true" versus "false."
a. 2 + 2 = 4. Why? Because we all agree upon it.
4. This sounds like belief knowledge. However, it differs in one critical element — once you establish an initial premise (which must have rigor), you have to follow the research protocol to investigate its effect and validity.
5. These disciplines are often seen as the epitome of science — an exact, fully logical, brick by brick process.

C. Empirical Sciences
1. Deal with objects and observations
a. Takes the world as it is and tries to understand it.
b. Here there can be NO truth, no right or wrong, only observations and hypotheses about the natural system.
2. Empirical Science may be roughly divided into two camps:
a. The Experimental Sciences: e.g., Chemistry, Physics and allied subjects.
(1) Here the subject allows the creation of controlled experiments in the laboratory.
(2) The objects under observation (e.g., atoms, molecules) are assumed to all be the same and to lack individuality.
b. The Historical Sciences: e.g., most of Biology, Geology.
(1) Here the objects under observation increasingly possess individual characteristics, such as single historical events or the individuals in a species. Optimal controls and laboratory experiments become increasingly difficult.
(2) Paleontology exhibits the "worst" of this in that it concerns organisms (which have individuality) in historical circumstances (where the coincidence of factors at any one time may NEVER be repeated) and all of this occurring in the distant past.
3. This distinction between Experimental and Historical Sciences sets up a false debate in public. Paleontologists are often compared with physicists and then faulted for not producing scientific data as measured by the standards of physics. We paleontologists simply cannot!
4. As we progress from experimental to historical sciences, we pass into a realm of the critical establishment of probability. "Good Science" becomes a matter of eliminating as many variables — while entertaining as many alternate interpretations of the observations — as possible."

What Is Science?

I believe this explanation to be spot on. I'm sure you could cite many experiments you have done in a chemistry or physics class that could be repeated over and over and achieve the same result as long as rigorous controls were in place. This can never be the case with predictions or hypotheses about events that occurred in the distant past. We can never know with 100% certainty that what believe about events in the past are absolutely true. We can only eliminate as many variables as possible. This is what you miss in Meyer's argument and you would note if you read his book. He attempts to eliminate as many competing hypothesis about the origin of information in dna as possible by arguing against some of the more prominent hypotheses put forth on the subject. This too is what you may miss in evolutionary biology. Darwin's tree of life has been shredded by genetic evidence, so new hypotheses have been introduced, like lateral gene transfer, to deal with the new evidence. When these types of discoveries net different results than what Darwin originally predicted, the IDers and Creationists have a field day, and rightfully so.

And that leads us to why I chose the screen name I did. The ultimate goal of science is to describe ultimate reality. Scientists are always trying to determine what is REALLY REAL. Even without my Theistic views, I would have a very hard time believing that evolution, not adaptation, is true based on the evidence. Once you learn to see many of the manipulations for what they are I liken it to the point in the matrix when Neo starts to see the code, instead of the simulation. I am not trying to put you down when I say you are not yet attune to it. There is SOOOOO much misinformation out there now with the proliferation of the internet. I wouldn't call it the information age. I would call it the misinformation age. Even when I did a google search for articles about the empirical sciences versus the historical sciences I was inundated with articles obviously written by evolution supporters to discredit the discrediting being done by the Theists. I can see the code now and I am not fooled by it.

All I see here, again, is an attempt to discredit a competing theory so that your hypothesis will have more of the stage. You attempt this from every angle imaginable, including, attacking the fundamental validity of evolutionary biology, on the grounds that it is "only a historical science." If evolution were proved completely wrong tomorrow, that would not do a single thing in proving an intelligent designer, or god, is responsible for any of the universe.

You lost me with "fundie evolutionist," but I managed to finish out your lengthy, and non-substantive post.

I don't consider your critique of my sources posted as valid, because you have not actually critiqued the content. You merely dismiss it off-hand.

The idea that the sciences can be neatly split into two distinct and mutually exclusive categories in all cases, is untenable, as demonstrated in the article I posted, using a real world example.

To reiterate the most important point: Trying to split the sciences into neat dichotomies so that one can be shown to be unreliable, does not nothing to prove there is a god or intelligent designer. In fact, the ultimate irony is that you would need the historical sciences just as much as evolution in order to make your case. So, your attempts as laying heavier burdens of proof upon historical claims only makes your task more difficult. This includes claims about the impossibility of abiogenesis, using purely math. This also includes the entire claim about an intelligent designer being the cause for life.

No doubt, your response will be, that ID is an experimental science and not a historical one, but here you fall into a fundamental paradox. You attempt to explain the past, without referring to the past. Presumably, you do this to avoid the pitfalls that you seen in the "historical sciences," but fail to realize this makes your investigation void of any real evidence. I believe this is the pitfall of ID. Therefore, you are constrained to evidence we have today, and the only thing you have is, the language of another mind: digital code. Therefore, you must make an inductive argument to reach your conclusions: DNA is a complex, specifiable code. Digital code is the same. Digital code is made by intelligent minds. Therefore, so is DNA. There is no evidence for this conclusion, other than looking at another code, and assuming it was formed in the same way. This is pure inductive reasoning. There is no direct evidence for DNA being created by an intelligent designer, because that would require looking to the past, but you have blocked off that avenue for yourself. It seems that IDers have trapped themselves logically.

If this is really the only argument or "evidence" you have for ID, then it is really hard for me to understand why you think this is convincing, at all. The only reason it is, is because you already believe that there was an intelligent force behind creation. The "science" of ID is not otherwise convincing to anyone else. ID is simply a contemporary version of the teleological argument. It is nothing new, and nothing special.

 

[newpolitics]

Hey theatre boy give me one argument you actually won. After this many pages surely you can come up with just one argument you won ? if you can't come up with that one argument why do you continue on ?

no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
it's an unbeatable fact.
if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much bitch.

There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.

Hebrews 11(NIV)

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Romans 1(NIV)

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

This is circular reasoning.

You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.

 

[daws101]

Did not have to you were the one that brought that to the discussion NP brought up HIV. Still a virus can die out or go dormant but either way it is because it got weaker to the point that the immune system could fight it off.

dodge

What I said goes with any virus daws are you really this dense ?

obviously not .

 

[daws101]

You see you could not provide one argument why do you continue on ?

more proof you are an illiterate..""there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
it's an unbeatable fact." means I win each and every argument so all of my posts are proof that I've won..
but again, to me it's not a matter of wining or losing .
even if you believe it's a win lose contest the answer is still the same:..""there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
so any claim of victory is false and subjective .

BTW, you can knockoff the why do you continue scam.
it will never have the desired effect.

I am not speaking of God Daws I am speaking of your theory,science daws.

bullshit and backpedaling no matter how you try to spin it, you are always yammering about god
your whole pov is based on the unprovable belief in god .

 

[daws101]

Daws did you misunderstand me when I said I was a molecular biologist ?

no why? molecular or not, without those aforementioned degrees you are not what you claim to be.

What do you think a molecular biologist is

a person who studies the structure of of cells observers their actions and their relationship to the whole of biology.
also do experiments and make judgments on the outcome of those experiments.
the only one of these you did was observe and report your obsevations.
my statements stand.

 

[daws101]

Daws are you still trying deny this planet is a closed system ?

As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.

By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.

An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.

In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.

In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.

The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.

false! you're intentionally misrepresenting what I said or as already pointed out you can't read .
I said the earth is a partially closed system (fact)
the universe is considered a closed system because as stated before "it" is "presumed" to
encompasses everything...
in actuality there is no way to know today but that will most likely change .

 

[daws101]

Methinks the Daws doth provide TMI. For you theatre freaks, thats "too mucheth informationeth".

another failed attempt a character assassination and lame ass cherry picking.

You are right. Your failed attempt to assassinate my character by insinuating I'm an alcoholic was pretty lame.

your character need no help from me to be assassinated as you commit character suicide in every post, for all to see.
wrong tosspot! I Insinuated nothing if I wanted to call you an alcoholic ,I would have done so.
on the other hand your answer hints at the fact that you might have an alcohol problem.
the whole post is another failed attempt at spin.

 

[daws101]

Hey theatre boy give me one argument you actually won. After this many pages surely you can come up with just one argument you won ? if you can't come up with that one argument why do you continue on ?

no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
it's an unbeatable fact.
if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much bitch.

There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.

Hebrews 11(NIV)

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Romans 1(NIV)

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

more meaningless emboldened cherry picking ,from an erroneous source.

 

[daws101]

Daws did you misunderstand me when I said I was a molecular biologist ?

no why? molecular or not, without those aforementioned degrees you are not what you claim to be.

Daws why do you pretend to know so much and you don't know my back ground.

How to Become a Molecular Biologist: Education and Career Roadmap

this is another pointless reply as stated before YOU did not complete what was required to be a molecular biologist.
end of story!

 

[daws101]

So why did some ID god make shit that would hurt us like viruses? Is he not too bright?

I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.

The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.

total bullshit ...

 

[Youwerecreated]

That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.

Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".

Hollie as usual you are so wrong. The virus takes over the host organism and that is what leads to the virus mutating and it can become stronger or weaker but over time the mutations will have an adverse reaction on both the organism and virus.

As usual, you define why you were never a molecular biologist. Try defining your terms a bit more succinctly. A virus does not 'take over' the host organism. A bit less Hollywood movie and a bit more biology would be helpful.

Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

FYI:

Conservative Christian Superhero Pat Robertson doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism.

Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So why did some ID god make shit that would hurt us like viruses? Is he not too bright?

I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.

The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.

How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man. You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?

So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?

I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?