Creationists

[UltimateReality]

NP, here is a great example of Evolutionists pretending inductive reasoning is deductive.

The new paper constructs several hypotheses for the early phases of evolution history and shows how universal common descent, in one variant or another, is the clear winner. And in the now well-established Bernoullian tradition, the results are grossly misinterpreted in favor of evolution. After showing that a comparison of 23 proteins—similar versions of which are found in many species—fit the universal common descent hypothesis far better than the hypothesized alternatives, the paper erroneously states that the results are “very strong empirical evidence” for universal common descent.

...

Evolution is a metaphysically-driven tradition and like most such traditions has built-in protections against objective critique. The result, unfortunately, is junk science. This new paper will be erroneously celebrated far and wide as yet a new level of certainty for evolution. Let the worship begin.

Darwin's God: Let the Worship Begin

... okay. This was a blog.

You seem to be making some categorical errors with regards to inductive reasoning and science.

Actually, it is you who keeps making the errors.

I never claimed that science doesn't use induction, and acknowledged that it has to, when I talked about the problem of induction. What is important, is that science doesn't use induction as the basis for making conclusions about a hypothesis.

Oh yes it most certainly does. If you read on I have provided an example where darwinists use induction to focus on one hypothesis which they then will call fact.

It uses deduction, because induction is so unreliable.

This is not a true statement.

For instance, you have no direct evidence that DNA is made by an intelligent designer, which isn't problematic, necessarily.

Of course it isn't captain obvious. It wouldn't be historical science if we had direct evidence.

Yet, neither do you possess indirect evidence, and indirect evidence is not the same thing as inductive reasoning. The only evidence you have is that the digital code is made by an intelligent mind (humans), which is obvious information. Your tactic is to draw enough similarities between DNA and Digital code, to be able to say the same for DNA.

This isn't a tactic. DNA is digital, SPECIFIABLE AND COMPLEX code.

This is pure inductive reasoning.

No it it isn't. You are wrong. Inductive reasoning occurs when you arrive at a hypothesis based on a cause currently in operation and the fact that we know that information carrying DNA originated in the distant past.

No matter how many similarities you draw between DNA and Digital code, you still have provided no evidence to support your premise that DNA was created by intelligence.

Yes I have and you keep choosing to ignore it!!! Geez! Do I need to state this 10 times for it to sink in??? Show me complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. The premise is "All complex, functional and specifiable digital codes have an intelligent agent as its source." This is a true statement until you falsify it with some different evidence!!! So instead of repeating over and over again I have supplied no evidence to support my premise, quit ignoring the evidence and give me the example above I have requested to disprove me.

Inductive reasoning is not evidence, yet, you present it as if it is.

No, I do not. Quit being intellectually dishonest. I have present the evidence and it is not inductive reasoning.

This, I think, is my main contention with your argument- you have no actual hard evidence. You're "evidence" is the inductive argument itself.

Wrong again!!! You have previously shown you have not grasp for circular argument identification and you are fallaciously trying to use the same, WRONG logic here. You have even stated the argument wrongly in previous posts, so either you still don't understand the argument or you are willfully being dishonest. Last time I am going to lay it out for you I swear:

-DNA with digitally coded, complex, specifiable information originated in the distant past approx. 3.5 billion years ago.

-All presently observable digitally coded, complex, specifiable information has an intelligent agent (a human in this instance) as it source. So our modern empirical evidence is that only intelligence produces complex, specifiable, digital code.

-Any other competing hypotheses for the origin of DNA do not stand up to scrutiny. Most competing origins hypotheses come from a basis of chance or necessity or a combination of both. A majority of the models start with ponds or ocean water containing the 20 necessary amino acids for protein building. Any hypotheses that assumes the complex data strings required to build very specific, functional proteins required for the most simple forms of life randomly came together in the pond or the ocean have such small odds that we can say it is impossible. All necessity arguments have been disproven because we know that the sugar backbone has no affinity for any one of the four nucleotides.

So by inductive reasoning, the best explanation we currently have, in light of all currently available evidence, is that the complex, specifiable information contained in dna came from some type of intelligence. Historical sciences, including Evolutionary biology, are limited to the best possible hyptheses, and that is not to say some new information might be revealed that would change or update the hypothesis. That is why we can't used deductive reasoning to say without 100% certainty no other valid hypothesis exist. Although that doesn't stop the foolish darwinists from doing it, which reduces their so called "fact" of evolution to pseudo science.

While inductive reasoning is commonly used in science, it is not always logically valid because it is not always accurate to assume that a general principle is correct... It is illogical to assume an entire premise just because one specific data set seems to suggest it.

You have not read the book so you continue to ASSume there is only one data set. Plus, see the article I posted about darwinists actually making deductive claims about their inductive hypothesis, which you fall for right away because it is your religion driving your science, to borrow from Cornelius.

...

By nature, inductive reasoning is more open-ended and exploratory, especially during the early stages. Deductive reasoning is more narrow and is generally used to test or confirm hypotheses. Most social research, however, involves both inductive and deductive reasoning throughout the research process. The scientific norm of logical reasoning provides a two-way bridge between theory and research. In practice, this typically involves alternating between deduction and induction.

Deductive Reasoning Versus Inductive Reasoning

Notice the placement of deductive and inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is more useful towards the beginning of analysis, while deductive reasoning is more useful towards the end, when conclusions are being drawn. This is my whole point.

You are drawing conclusions using inductive reasoning, which is simply impossible.

Wrong again. You still don't grasp it because you need more guidance than just reading stuff on the internet. Drawing conclusions from inductive reasoning is perfectly fine. You just can't assume or declare that there are no other possibilities that might not yet have come to light. But again, these rules don't stop darwinists from using inductive reasoning to make deductive statements, which you pathetically buy without question.

 

[UltimateReality]

The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent. This means the species should form an evolutionary tree, where species that share a recent common ancestor, such as two frog species, are highly similar, and species that share a distant common ancestor, such as humans and squids, are very different. But the species do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern. In fact this expectation has been violated so many times it is difficult to keep track. These violations are not rare or occasional anomalies, they are the rule. Entire volumes have been written on them. Many examples are the repeated designs found in what, according to evolution, must be very distant species. Such evolutionary convergence is biology’s version of lightning striking twice. To explain this evolutionists must say that random mutations just happened to hit upon the same detailed, intricate design at different times, in different parts of the world, in different ecological niches, and so forth. The idea that the most complex designs we know of would spontaneously arise by themselves is, itself, not scientifically motivated and a real stretch of the imagination. But for the same intricate designs to arise independently by chance is even more of a stretch. That is why evolutionist’s claim this week that they have found evidence for convergent evolution was so intriguing.

[A REAL EXAMPLE OF CIRCULAR REASONING]

It makes for a startling headline and once again gives journalists license to proclaim another confirmation of evolution. But down in the details, Hoy’s “evidence” is nothing more than circular reasoning. In a classic example of evolutionary blowback, Hoy reasons that (i) mammals and katydids evolved, (ii) their hearing designs are remarkably similar, so (iii) therefore it is proof of convergent evolution.

Or simply put, evolution is true, so therefore evolution is true.

This is a confirmation not of convergent evolution but of how evolution has corrupted scientific thinking. Fallacious reasoning such as this is, unfortunately, is the rule rather than the exception.




Darwin's God: Evolutionists Find Evidence For Convergence

It's the same logical fallacies. No wonder you are full of them. You are consuming all of them from sources like this. Much of this is simply an argument from personal incredulity.

Evolution is true, because it is able to be demonstrated through evidence and predictive power. Hence, it is not circular. Whoever wrote this is being dishonest about reality.

You can't have your cake and eat it to!!! You have said nothing to address the points in the article, but only state he employs logical fallacies. That ain't going to cut it here.

 

[Hollie]

Simply amazing!!! The Bible says God makes himself plain to us, as in totally obvious.

Check this..

DNA directly photographed for first time - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News

What nonsense. This above characterization may be the worst example of religious fundamentalism gone wrong.

 

[Hollie]

As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.

There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.

There is no evidence for evolution, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for God, when there is vast amounts. This dishonesty is what is so bothersome about darwinists. They create their own reality.

Just more of the conspiracy theory rattling of the religiously dumbed-down.

 

[UltimateReality]

There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.

There is no evidence for evolution, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for God, when there is vast amounts. This dishonesty is what is so bothersome about darwinists. They create their own reality.

Just more of the conspiracy theory rattling of the religiously dumbed-down.

Just another in the mountain of irrelevant posts you have added to this thread.

 

[Hollie]

There is no evidence for evolution, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for God, when there is vast amounts. This dishonesty is what is so bothersome about darwinists. They create their own reality.

Just more of the conspiracy theory rattling of the religiously dumbed-down.

Just another in the mountain of irrelevant posts you have added to this thread.

I’m afraid that the issue you’re unable to confront is that cutting and pasting from creationist bloggers such as Cornelius Hunter makes you an accomplice to creationist lies and falsifications. Such as:
The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent.

Just another cut and paste floating in the polluted backwater of Christian creationist nonsense.

The Theory of Evolution is silent on the spontaneous emergence of life. This falsification is another of the devices used by creationists to create the illusion that creationism is a viable mechanism to explain the diversity of life on the planet. Christian creationism is simply the misrepresentation of authoritative scientific research; The lack of actual research undertaken by the christian creationist ministries and the refusal to submit research and results for peer review. The occasional bit of jingoistic flatulence allows creationist hacks to appear authoritative to people with a prior commitment to religious dogma. However, since there is nothing in the literature of the Christian creationist ministries to support their arguments, their charade of authority can be maintained only by pressing a distorted caricature of how the Scientific Method is actually maintaiined.

What is truly laughable in the allegations of the typical IDiot argument from incredulity (and an especially poor one given the substantial lack of rhetorical skill of Disco’Tute hacks such as Hunter) is the fact that he can offer no mechanism or theory as to what alternative mechanism (other than the implied “gawds did it”) could better explain the “convergence” than evolution. This is especially laughable because the Disco’Tutes own Michael Behe proposed a laughably creationist inspired “theory” about decade ago. The first cell 3.5 - 4 billion years ago might have had all of the required genetic material for reproduction in place but was simply “turned off” until needed. It’s a laughable joke but that is what defines the Christian creationist agenda.

Just think, for all these decades, the Christian creationist ministries could have been testing the data and publishing peer reviewed papers proving their Christian gawds. Instead, they’ve been recycling the same tired nonsense that has been shown over and over again to do nothing but a misrepresentation of evolution.

 

[Hollie]

Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact

Sandwalk: Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact

Cornelius Hunter blogs at Darwin's God. He has a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology and currently teaches at Biola University. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute and the author of several books that I have not read.

Hunter has devoted most of his blogging efforts to attacks on science. This seems to be the most popular strategy of the Intelligent Design Creationists in spite of their claims to the contrary.

His latest posting is Why Evolutionists Say Evolution is a Fact.

Evolutionists say evolution is a fact, every bit as much as gravity is a fact. That is remarkable. We see and even feel gravity everyday. Evolution, on the other hand, entails rather dramatic, one-time, events that were supposed to have occurred long ago, when no one was around to witness them. How could we be sure of such a theory? There must be some extremely powerful and compelling scientific evidence for evolution to make it a fact as gravity is a fact. That is what one would think. But, surprisingly, there is no such evidence. When evolutionists try to explain why evolution is a fact, it is a tremendous anticlimax.

Hunter has not been paying attention. Many of us have written on the subject of evolution as a fact [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory]. Evidence for the "factness" of evolution is overwhelming. It ranges from evidence that chimps and humans descend from a common ancestor to evidence that the frequencies of alleles are changing in populations as we speak.

That last point is important. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time and as long as we can demonstrate that change, the fact of evolution can't be disputed. I wonder how Cornelius Hunter explains the differences between the Japanese and the Masai of Kenya and Tanzania? I wonder how he explains the fact that native North Americans are practically homogeneous for O blood type? I wonder how he explains the many studies that have directly tracked heritable change over many generations?

Why are the IDiots so stubborn and so ignorant? Why couldn't Cornelius Hunter demonstrate that he understands why evolution is a fact while disputing some forms of macroevolution? That would be a sensible position. Instead, he comes off looking like an IDiot

 

[Hollie]

Does anyone need to become familiar with Biola University? It is apparently a warehouse for Christian creationists such as Cornelius Hunter.

Biola University
Home « Science & Religion « Biola University

“Biblically Centered Education”

Biola's new science and religion program is unique because it presents this material from a theologically conservative, evangelical perspective. It also builds on Biola University's existing strengths in evangelical theology, philosophy, and apologetics and continues Biola's mission of integrating core academic disciplines within historical context and among the deep of resources in Christian thought as well as responding to the toughest challenges from secular worldviews and today's cultural and scientifically relevant strongholds.

Can you spell, (smell), a-g-e-n-d-a?

 

[UltimateReality]

Does anyone need to become familiar with Biola University? It is apparently a warehouse for Christian creationists such as Cornelius Hunter.

Biola University
Home « Science & Religion « Biola University

“Biblically Centered Education”

Biola's new science and religion program is unique because it presents this material from a theologically conservative, evangelical perspective. It also builds on Biola University's existing strengths in evangelical theology, philosophy, and apologetics and continues Biola's mission of integrating core academic disciplines within historical context and among the deep of resources in Christian thought as well as responding to the toughest challenges from secular worldviews and today's cultural and scientifically relevant strongholds.

Can you spell, (smell), a-g-e-n-d-a?

This is typical of your ad hominem nonsense. You never go after the argument, only the arguer.

Additionally, you fail to identify the atheists strongholds where you have all your rhetoric spoon fed to you and then you deny your own, bigoted, Christian-hating, self-loathing agenda.

 

[UltimateReality]

Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact

Sandwalk: Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact

Cornelius Hunter blogs at Darwin's God. He has a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology and currently teaches at Biola University. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute and the author of several books that I have not read.

Hunter has devoted most of his blogging efforts to attacks on science. This seems to be the most popular strategy of the Intelligent Design Creationists in spite of their claims to the contrary.

His latest posting is Why Evolutionists Say Evolution is a Fact.

Evolutionists say evolution is a fact, every bit as much as gravity is a fact. That is remarkable. We see and even feel gravity everyday. Evolution, on the other hand, entails rather dramatic, one-time, events that were supposed to have occurred long ago, when no one was around to witness them. How could we be sure of such a theory? There must be some extremely powerful and compelling scientific evidence for evolution to make it a fact as gravity is a fact. That is what one would think. But, surprisingly, there is no such evidence. When evolutionists try to explain why evolution is a fact, it is a tremendous anticlimax.

Hunter has not been paying attention. Many of us have written on the subject of evolution

Many of us??? You haven't written an original thought in 750 pages. I guess if you count cut and pasting as writing.

as a fact [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory]. Evidence for the "factness" of evolution is overwhelming. It ranges from evidence that chimps and humans descend from a common ancestor to evidence that the frequencies of alleles are changing in populations as we speak.

That last point is important. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time and as long as we can demonstrate that change, the fact of evolution can't be disputed. I wonder how Cornelius Hunter explains the differences between the Japanese and the Masai of Kenya and Tanzania? I wonder how he explains the fact that native North Americans are practically homogeneous for O blood type? I wonder how he explains the many studies that have directly tracked heritable change over many generations?

Why are the IDiots so stubborn and so ignorant? Why couldn't Cornelius Hunter demonstrate that he understands why evolution is a fact while disputing some forms of macroevolution? That would be a sensible position. Instead, he comes off looking like an IDiot

 

[Hollie]

Does anyone need to become familiar with Biola University? It is apparently a warehouse for Christian creationists such as Cornelius Hunter.

Biola University
Home « Science & Religion « Biola University

“Biblically Centered Education”

Biola's new science and religion program is unique because it presents this material from a theologically conservative, evangelical perspective. It also builds on Biola University's existing strengths in evangelical theology, philosophy, and apologetics and continues Biola's mission of integrating core academic disciplines within historical context and among the deep of resources in Christian thought as well as responding to the toughest challenges from secular worldviews and today's cultural and scientifically relevant strongholds.

Can you spell, (smell), a-g-e-n-d-a?

This is typical of your ad hominem nonsense. You never go after the argument, only the arguer.

Additionally, you fail to identify the atheists strongholds where you have all your rhetoric spoon fed to you and then you deny your own, bigoted, Christian-hating, self-loathing agenda.

Well gee, my little stalker, speaking of ad hominem's as is expected of a frustrated stalker, you're a poor candidate for judging my posts.

Your hero charlatans at the christian christian ministries have no special excemption from critique of their positions or strategies for furthering their lies and misinformation. That you buy into their nonsense for partisan religious reasons is your issue to deal with, not mine.

Your primary contention is that I actually do "go after" the argument. It's when the arguments from ignorance (that define the christian creationist agenda), are shown to be false and/or manufactured is when you tend to get the most argumentative and nasty.

 

[Hollie]

Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact

Sandwalk: Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact

Cornelius Hunter blogs at Darwin's God. He has a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology and currently teaches at Biola University. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute and the author of several books that I have not read.

Hunter has devoted most of his blogging efforts to attacks on science. This seems to be the most popular strategy of the Intelligent Design Creationists in spite of their claims to the contrary.

His latest posting is Why Evolutionists Say Evolution is a Fact.

Evolutionists say evolution is a fact, every bit as much as gravity is a fact. That is remarkable. We see and even feel gravity everyday. Evolution, on the other hand, entails rather dramatic, one-time, events that were supposed to have occurred long ago, when no one was around to witness them. How could we be sure of such a theory? There must be some extremely powerful and compelling scientific evidence for evolution to make it a fact as gravity is a fact. That is what one would think. But, surprisingly, there is no such evidence. When evolutionists try to explain why evolution is a fact, it is a tremendous anticlimax.

Hunter has not been paying attention. Many of us have written on the subject of evolution

Many of us??? You haven't written an original thought in 750 pages. I guess if you count cut and pasting as writing.

as a fact [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory]. Evidence for the "factness" of evolution is overwhelming. It ranges from evidence that chimps and humans descend from a common ancestor to evidence that the frequencies of alleles are changing in populations as we speak.

That last point is important. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time and as long as we can demonstrate that change, the fact of evolution can't be disputed. I wonder how Cornelius Hunter explains the differences between the Japanese and the Masai of Kenya and Tanzania? I wonder how he explains the fact that native North Americans are practically homogeneous for O blood type? I wonder how he explains the many studies that have directly tracked heritable change over many generations?

Why are the IDiots so stubborn and so ignorant? Why couldn't Cornelius Hunter demonstrate that he understands why evolution is a fact while disputing some forms of macroevolution? That would be a sensible position. Instead, he comes off looking like an IDiot

Why yes, my little stalker. Amidst your frantic cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites, you found it uncomfortable to actually address the issues that confound your silly “The gawds did it”, argument in favor of cutting and pasting from fundie websites.

I understand that you are in denial of the science supporting evolution. Even though myself and others have been gentle in our tolerance for your personal attacks, endless cutting and pasting of material you don’t understand and the creepy stalking you have been engaged in, the many science disciplines supporting evolution are not in question except in the fantastical world of Christian creationist devotees. Even if evolution was to be completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any of your gawds.

Claims of Big Foot, Loch Ness monsters, gawd(s), angels, “miracles” etc., etc., etc., are fine for stirring the imagination but useful for little else. Can you provide evidence to support those claims? No, you can’t. Extending further, Christian creationist “principles” (and I use that term with much reservation) are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. By the way, why the various franchises and subdivisions of Christian creationism? One cannot even make an intelligent and verifiable choice as to the varieties of Christian creationism, let alone use the theism of christianity to be the foundation of principles to determine knowledge. Religious beliefs are faith-based and as such detour around a need for proof, and thus cannot serve as the guidelines for knowledge (outside of their own assertions).

 

[newpolitics]

The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent. This means the species should form an evolutionary tree, where species that share a recent common ancestor, such as two frog species, are highly similar, and species that share a distant common ancestor, such as humans and squids, are very different. But the species do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern. In fact this expectation has been violated so many times it is difficult to keep track. These violations are not rare or occasional anomalies, they are the rule. Entire volumes have been written on them. Many examples are the repeated designs found in what, according to evolution, must be very distant species. Such evolutionary convergence is biology’s version of lightning striking twice. To explain this evolutionists must say that random mutations just happened to hit upon the same detailed, intricate design at different times, in different parts of the world, in different ecological niches, and so forth. The idea that the most complex designs we know of would spontaneously arise by themselves is, itself, not scientifically motivated and a real stretch of the imagination. But for the same intricate designs to arise independently by chance is even more of a stretch. That is why evolutionist’s claim this week that they have found evidence for convergent evolution was so intriguing.

[A REAL EXAMPLE OF CIRCULAR REASONING]

It makes for a startling headline and once again gives journalists license to proclaim another confirmation of evolution. But down in the details, Hoy’s “evidence” is nothing more than circular reasoning. In a classic example of evolutionary blowback, Hoy reasons that (i) mammals and katydids evolved, (ii) their hearing designs are remarkably similar, so (iii) therefore it is proof of convergent evolution.

Or simply put, evolution is true, so therefore evolution is true.

This is a confirmation not of convergent evolution but of how evolution has corrupted scientific thinking. Fallacious reasoning such as this is, unfortunately, is the rule rather than the exception.




Darwin's God: Evolutionists Find Evidence For Convergence

It's the same logical fallacies. No wonder you are full of them. You are consuming all of them from sources like this. Much of this is simply an argument from personal incredulity.

Evolution is true, because it is able to be demonstrated through evidence and predictive power. Hence, it is not circular. Whoever wrote this is being dishonest about reality.

You can't have your cake and eat it to!!! You have said nothing to address the points in the article, but only state he employs logical fallacies. That ain't going to cut it here.

Yes... it is. I am not going to dissect every article you throw at me. I am not doubting your source, like you did me, so don't even try and turn this around on me.

Suffice it to say, this was entirely unconvincing because it employs the same ID logical fallacies and faulty arguments. The IDers simply are jumping to a conclusion, without warrant.

 

[newpolitics]

UR, you never answered my question about DNA.

You claim that DNA is digital, yet the DNA code is quaternary, and digital code is binary. How are you therefore able to call DNA "digital"?

 

[UltimateReality]

Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact

Sandwalk: Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact

Cornelius Hunter blogs at Darwin's God. He has a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology and currently teaches at Biola University. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute and the author of several books that I have not read.

Hunter has devoted most of his blogging efforts to attacks on science. This seems to be the most popular strategy of the Intelligent Design Creationists in spite of their claims to the contrary.

His latest posting is Why Evolutionists Say Evolution is a Fact.



Hunter has not been paying attention. Many of us have written on the subject of evolution

Many of us??? You haven't written an original thought in 750 pages. I guess if you count cut and pasting as writing.

as a fact [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory]. Evidence for the "factness" of evolution is overwhelming. It ranges from evidence that chimps and humans descend from a common ancestor to evidence that the frequencies of alleles are changing in populations as we speak.

That last point is important. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time and as long as we can demonstrate that change, the fact of evolution can't be disputed. I wonder how Cornelius Hunter explains the differences between the Japanese and the Masai of Kenya and Tanzania? I wonder how he explains the fact that native North Americans are practically homogeneous for O blood type? I wonder how he explains the many studies that have directly tracked heritable change over many generations?

Why are the IDiots so stubborn and so ignorant? Why couldn't Cornelius Hunter demonstrate that he understands why evolution is a fact while disputing some forms of macroevolution? That would be a sensible position. Instead, he comes off looking like an IDiot

Why yes, my little stalker. Amidst your frantic cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites, you found it uncomfortable to actually address the issues that confound your silly “The gawds did it”, argument in favor of cutting and pasting from fundie websites.

I understand that you are in denial of the science supporting evolution. Even though myself and others have been gentle in our tolerance for your personal attacks, endless cutting and pasting of material you don’t understand and the creepy stalking you have been engaged in,

nice parroting. But you need to get your own material.

the many science disciplines supporting evolution are not in question except in the fantastical world of Christian creationist devotees. Even if evolution was to be completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any of your gawds.

Strawman-hands. You and NP keep using this strawman over and over.

Claims of Big Foot, Loch Ness monsters, gawd(s), angels, “miracles” etc., etc., etc., are fine for stirring the imagination but useful for little else. Can you provide evidence to support those claims? No, you can’t. Extending further, Christian creationist “principles” (and I use that term with much reservation) are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. By the way, why the various franchises and subdivisions of Christian creationism? One cannot even make an intelligent and verifiable choice as to the varieties of Christian creationism, let alone use the theism of christianity to be the foundation of principles to determine knowledge. Religious beliefs are faith-based and as such detour around a need for proof, and thus cannot serve as the guidelines for knowledge (outside of their own assertions).

 

[UltimateReality]

UR, you never answered my question about DNA.

You claim that DNA is digital, yet the DNA code is quaternary, and digital code is binary. How are you therefore able to call DNA "digital"?

I did answer your question. You missed it. And your post shows a lack of understanding of what digital is. Do you know what analog is? Do you know the difference between music stored on an LP record and music stored on a CD? Your fallacy comes from your belief that Binary code is the only type of digital code. It isn't.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-640.html#post6256797

Just google it for goodness sake!!! You will be hard pressed to find one your atheist websites to dispute the fact dna is digital code.

"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its digital nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html

"When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical—until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA—one trillionth of a gram—an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/written-in-dna-code.html

"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.

A: adenosine
C: cytosine
G: guanine
T: thymine

These 4 substances are the fundamental "bits" of information in the genetic code, and are called "base pairs" because there is actually 2 substances per "bit", as discussed later. Everything else is built on top of this basis of 4 DNA digits."

http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/genetics/dna.htm

The longest term correlations in living systems are the information stored in DNA which reflects the evolutionary history of an organism. The 4 bases (A,T,G,C) encode sequences of amino acids as well as locations of binding sites for proteins that regulate DNA. The fidelity of this important information is maintained by ANALOG error check mechanisms. When a single strand of DNA is replicated the complementary base is inserted in the new strand. Sometimes the wrong base is inserted that sticks out disrupting the phosphate backbone. The new base is not yet methylated, so repair enzymes, that slide along the DNA, can tear out the wrong base and replace it with the right one. The bases in DNA form a sequence of 4 different symbols and so the information is encoded in a DIGITAL form. All the digital codes in our society (ISBN book numbers, UPC product codes, bank account numbers, airline ticket numbers) use error checking code, where some digits are functions of other digits to maintain the fidelity of transmitted information. Does DNA also utilize a DIGITAL error checking code to maintain the fidelity of its information and increase the accuracy of replication? That is, are some bases in DNA functions of other bases upstream or downstream? This raises the interesting mathematical problem: How does one determine whether some symbols in a sequence of symbols are a function of other symbols. It also bears on the issue of determining algorithmic complexity: What is the function that generates the shortest algorithm for reproducing the symbol sequence. The error checking codes most used in our technology are linear block codes. We developed an efficient method to test for the presence of such codes in DNA. We coded the 4 bases as (0,1,2,3) and used Gaussian elimination, modified for modulus 4, to test if some bases are linear combinations of other bases. We used this method to analyze the base sequence in the genes from the lac operon and cytochrome C. We did not find evidence for such error correcting codes in these genes. However, we analyzed only a small amount of DNA and if digital error correcting schemes are present in DNA, they may be more subtle than such simple linear block codes. The basic issue we raise here, is how information is stored in DNA and an appreciation that digital symbol sequences, such as DNA, admit of interesting schemes to store and protect the fidelity of their information content. Liebovitch, Tao, Todorov, Levine. 1996. Biophys. J. 71:1539-1544. Supported by NIH grant EY6234.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998APS..MAR.G1202L

 

[Hollie]

Many of us??? You haven't written an original thought in 750 pages. I guess if you count cut and pasting as writing.

Why yes, my little stalker. Amidst your frantic cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites, you found it uncomfortable to actually address the issues that confound your silly “The gawds did it”, argument in favor of cutting and pasting from fundie websites.

I understand that you are in denial of the science supporting evolution. Even though myself and others have been gentle in our tolerance for your personal attacks, endless cutting and pasting of material you don’t understand and the creepy stalking you have been engaged in,

nice parroting. But you need to get your own material.

the many science disciplines supporting evolution are not in question except in the fantastical world of Christian creationist devotees. Even if evolution was to be completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any of your gawds.

Strawman-hands. You and NP keep using this strawman over and over.

Claims of Big Foot, Loch Ness monsters, gawd(s), angels, “miracles” etc., etc., etc., are fine for stirring the imagination but useful for little else. Can you provide evidence to support those claims? No, you can’t. Extending further, Christian creationist “principles” (and I use that term with much reservation) are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. By the way, why the various franchises and subdivisions of Christian creationism? One cannot even make an intelligent and verifiable choice as to the varieties of Christian creationism, let alone use the theism of christianity to be the foundation of principles to determine knowledge. Religious beliefs are faith-based and as such detour around a need for proof, and thus cannot serve as the guidelines for knowledge (outside of their own assertions).

As we see, the best way to deal with religious bullies, fundie blowhards and contentious crackpots is simply to confront them with demands that they support their claims to supermagical entites. As we will see, the christian creationist will no doubt be unable to address the following issues just as he was unable to address the preceeding.

In the meantime,

1) What, precisely is this designer? How can we test your answer?
2) What, precisely, did your alleged designer, design? How can we test your answer?
3) How, precisely did your alleged designer, design all of existence? How can we test your answer?
4) When, precisely did your alleged designer design all of existence? How can we test your answer?
5) What is an example of something that is not designed by your alleged designer? How can we test your answer?

6) The Bible (allegedly the pathway to your version of supernatural gawds), includes passages which, among many other false and contradictory passages, suggests that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. If we are to accept the fundie premise that (takes deep breath) the Bible is authoritatively true because the Bible is the word of the gawds and since the gawds are perfect the Bible is therefore true, are these passages literally true? If they’re not true, how do you resolve these inconsistencies? If the Bible is sometimes defining metaphors (and sometimes not), how do you define those passages which are non-literal as opposed to those which are absolute and therefore either too literal (but not too literal) to maybe coincide with the theory of evolution and other established science… or maybe not?

 

[mikegriffith1]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old? Meh. It baffles me.

Many creationists--if not most--believe in an old earth.

Anyway, believing the earth is 6,000 years old is not as untenable as believing that life sprang from non-life, that sophisticated organisms were formed by random processes by a tautology (natural selection), and that the eye came from light-sensitive spots that somehow, someway developed lens, the ability to focus, and all the neural pathways to the brain via natural selection and mutations when natural selection would have had no reason to "select" the necessary components because they would have provided no advanatage and when the very concept of sight did not even exist.

 

[Hollie]

UR, you never answered my question about DNA.

You claim that DNA is digital, yet the DNA code is quaternary, and digital code is binary. How are you therefore able to call DNA "digital"?

I did answer your question. You missed it. And your post shows a lack of understanding of what digital is. Do you know what analog is? Do you know the difference between music stored on an LP record and music stored on a CD? Your fallacy comes from your belief that Binary code is the only type of digital code. It isn't.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-640.html#post6256797

Just google it for goodness sake!!! You will be hard pressed to find one your atheist websites to dispute the fact dna is digital code.

"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its digital nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html

"When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical—until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA—one trillionth of a gram—an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."

DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - ScienceNOW

"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.

A: adenosine
C: cytosine
G: guanine
T: thymine

These 4 substances are the fundamental "bits" of information in the genetic code, and are called "base pairs" because there is actually 2 substances per "bit", as discussed later. Everything else is built on top of this basis of 4 DNA digits."

Introduction to Genes and DNA - RightDiagnosis.com

The longest term correlations in living systems are the information stored in DNA which reflects the evolutionary history of an organism. The 4 bases (A,T,G,C) encode sequences of amino acids as well as locations of binding sites for proteins that regulate DNA. The fidelity of this important information is maintained by ANALOG error check mechanisms. When a single strand of DNA is replicated the complementary base is inserted in the new strand. Sometimes the wrong base is inserted that sticks out disrupting the phosphate backbone. The new base is not yet methylated, so repair enzymes, that slide along the DNA, can tear out the wrong base and replace it with the right one. The bases in DNA form a sequence of 4 different symbols and so the information is encoded in a DIGITAL form. All the digital codes in our society (ISBN book numbers, UPC product codes, bank account numbers, airline ticket numbers) use error checking code, where some digits are functions of other digits to maintain the fidelity of transmitted information. Does DNA also utilize a DIGITAL error checking code to maintain the fidelity of its information and increase the accuracy of replication? That is, are some bases in DNA functions of other bases upstream or downstream? This raises the interesting mathematical problem: How does one determine whether some symbols in a sequence of symbols are a function of other symbols. It also bears on the issue of determining algorithmic complexity: What is the function that generates the shortest algorithm for reproducing the symbol sequence. The error checking codes most used in our technology are linear block codes. We developed an efficient method to test for the presence of such codes in DNA. We coded the 4 bases as (0,1,2,3) and used Gaussian elimination, modified for modulus 4, to test if some bases are linear combinations of other bases. We used this method to analyze the base sequence in the genes from the lac operon and cytochrome C. We did not find evidence for such error correcting codes in these genes. However, we analyzed only a small amount of DNA and if digital error correcting schemes are present in DNA, they may be more subtle than such simple linear block codes. The basic issue we raise here, is how information is stored in DNA and an appreciation that digital symbol sequences, such as DNA, admit of interesting schemes to store and protect the fidelity of their information content. Liebovitch, Tao, Todorov, Levine. 1996. Biophys. J. 71:1539-1544. Supported by NIH grant EY6234.

What Information is Stored in DNA: Does it Contain Digital Error Correcting Code

Did you realize that cutting and pasting from a non-christian creationist website actually contradicts your earlier statements?

You fundies should stay away from that vile science stuff.

"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.

So... apparently DNA is not the "digital machine" that fundies love to describe it as, so as to make goofy allegations such as "DNA is a digital machine. Since all machines require a designer, DNA is therfore the product of a designer.... and not just any designer, but a particular, identifiable designer alluded to in a book I read: the Bible. Since the Bible is true... kinda, sorta, and since I was told as a child that the Bible is true, the Bible is therefore true. And you read all this on the internet, it is absolutely true.

 

[Hollie]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old? Meh. It baffles me.

Many creationists--if not most--believe in an old earth.

I think that is a broad generalization not actually true.

Anyway, believing the earth is 6,000 years old is not as untenable as believing that life sprang from non-life, that sophisticated organisms were formed by random processes by a tautology (natural selection), and that the eye came from light-sensitive spots that somehow, someway developed lens, the ability to focus, and all the neural pathways to the brain via natural selection and mutations when natural selection would have had no reason to "select" the necessary components because they would have provided no advanatage and when the very concept of sight did not even exist.

The miracle of the eye™ is a favorite of the Christian creationist community. The eye is suggested to be too complex to have developed except by bring “poofed” into form and function by a supermagical designer.

Think of the slogan “irreducibly complex”, (a favorite of the Christian creationists).
Anyway, here’s some reading material you may find interesting:

CB301: Eye complexity

More creationist misconceptions about the eye - The Panda's Thumb

One in the eye for intelligent design - The Panda's Thumb

Cretinism or Evilution?: An Old, Out of Context Quotation


As to what is "untenable", regarding the development of life on the planet, that seems to be a matter of whether you accept the natural explanations for life or the supernatural explanations. What is undeniable is that science and knowledge have peeled back the layers of superstition regarding the natural world that have kept mankind chained to fear and superstition.

There aren't too many people being burned at the stake these days for predicting an eclipse.