Creationists

[Hollie]

One can only marvel at the Simpleton Syndrome that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define “Darwin did it” arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.

The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, it’s because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.

We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their “reasoning” to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists’ arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.

It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore reason and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.

How sad for you. Unable to actually compose a coherent post of your own, you had to plagiarize my earlier comments.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What breeders have reached a dead end?

Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.

So, you're clueless. You can't even define the terms you use.

Give it up, you're getting desperate now.

 

[Hollie]

line breed·ing
Noun
The selective breeding of animals for a desired feature by mating them within a closely related line.

Now let's look at the results of linebreeding and over breeding a particular breed. We will use an article from a site you support.

Top 10 Most Over-Bred Dogs | PETA.org

Your post largely described what I corrected you about.

You didn't correct me on anything you have just failed to understand that article supported what I said.

The article supported nothing you said. You're unable to define what you wrote.

"Over-breeding" is a meaningless term. Over-breeding might mean an over-supply but it means nothing in the context of line-breeding. As it has been explained to you, line-breeding is the process of breeding dogs (and other animals) with "family" members.

It's similar to what happened when your gawds wiped most of humanity from the planet, leaving Noah and his immediate family members to re-populate the planet. How strange that your designer gawds would promote incest.

 

[Hollie]

Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.

So, you're clueless. You can't even define the terms you use.

Give it up, you're getting desperate now.

And still, you waffle and evade.

 

[Hollie]

You gave a poor explanation of linebreeding.

Your feelings were hurt at being derided for your uneducated, silly and ineffectual description of "over breeding" and not at all understanding the terms and definition s you were writing out.

Both line breeding and overbreeding are not good for the breed for the reasons I stated.

What is "overbreeding"?

Heyzeus H. Chrust, but you are such a clown.

 

[UltimateReality]

Further proof that Hawly has no clue what she is even posting...

Poor christian creationists. Once again, their "probaility" arguments are shot down in flames.


Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions

Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions

Often on talk.origins we have seen assertions to the effect that there exists a law that is well known to physicists and/or mathematicians (possibly implying that it is a mathematical theorem) that there is a particular order of probability below which any event is considered to be "essentially impossible". This statement usually preceeds a calculation based on some unrealistic model of the formation of complicated organic molecules via the random assembly of atoms as "proof" that abiogenesis is impossible. At the end of this article, references are given to several creationist sources that refer to this probability assertion as "Borel's Law".

The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.

…

In Probability and Life, Borel states a "single law of chance" as the principle that "Phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur". At the beginning of Chapter Three of this book, he states:
When we stated the single law of chance, "events whose probability is sufficiently small never occur," we did not conceal the lack of precision of the statement. There are cases where no doubt is possible; such is that of the complete works of Goethe being reproduced by a typist who does not know German and is typing at random. Between this somewhat extreme case and ones in which the probabilities are very small but nevertheless such that the occurrence of the corresponding event is not incredible, there are many intermediate cases. We shall attempt to determine as precisely as possible which values of probability must be regarded as negligible under certain circumstances.

It is evident that the requirements with respect to the degree of certainty imposed on the single law of chance will vary depending on whether we deal with scientific certainty or with the certainty which suffices in a given circumstance of everyday life.

The point being, that Borel's Law is a "rule of thumb" that exists on a sliding scale, depending on the phenomenon in question. It is not a mathematical theorem, nor is there any hard number that draws a line in the statistical sand saying that all events of a given probability and smaller are impossible for all types of events.

Borel continues by giving examples of how to choose such cutoff probabilities. For example, by reasoning from the traffic death rate of 1 per million in Paris (pre-World War II statistics) that an event of probability of 10-6(one in a million) is negligible on a "human scale". Multiplying this by 10-9 (1 over the population of the world in the 1940s), he obtains 10-15 as an estimate of negligible probabilities on a "terrestrial scale".

To evaluate the chance that physical laws such as Newtonian mechanics or laws related to the propagation of light could be wrong, Borel discusses probabilities that are negligible on a "cosmic scale", Borel asserts that 10-50 represents a negligible event on the cosmic scale as it is well below one over the product of the number of observable stars (109) times the number of observations that humans could make on those stars (1020).

To compute the odds against a container containing a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen spontaneously segregating into pure nitrogen on the top half and pure oxygen on the bottom half, Borel states that for equal volumes of oxygen and nitrogen the odds would be 2-n where n is the number of atoms, which Borel states as being smaller than the negligible probability of 10-(10(-10)), which he assigns as the negligible probability on a "supercosmic" scale. Borel creates this supercosmos by nesting our universe U1inside successive supercosmoses, each with the same number of elements identical to the preceding cosmos as that cosmos has its own elements, so that U2 would be composed of the same number of U1's as U1 has atoms, and U3 would be composed of the same number of U2's as U2 has U1's, and so forth on up to UN where N=1 million. He then creates a similar nested time scale with the base time of our universe being a billion years (T2 would contain a billion, billion years) on up to TN, N=1 million. Under such conditions of the number of atoms and the amount of time, the probability of separating the nitrogen and oxygen by a random process is still so small as to be negligible.

Ultimately, the point is that the user must design his or her "negligible probability" estimate based on a given set of assumed conditions.

Curiously, in spite of the suggestive title of the book Probability and Life, Borel has no discussion of evolution or abiogenesis-related issues. However, in Probability and Certainty, the last section of the main text is devoted to this question.


From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:

The Problem of Life.

In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments.

When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle?

It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.

Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit.
Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.

In short, Borel says what many a talk.origins poster has said time and time again when confronted with such creationist arguments: namely, that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.

First, the stupid talk origins commentator misrepresents Meyers argument as having something to do with atoms. It doesn't.

Then the quote author alludes to a multiple universe theory to reduce probabilities, and admits he doesn't even address origins questions. He talks about irrelevant crystals, and makes an appeal to evolution. Finally, he alludes to necessity, with an irrelevant comment about forces of matter we don't understand, but doesn't tell us what those are.

It is no surprise that Hawly would consider this as Creationists being shot down in flames since her threshold for what actually constitutes evidence or proof, has been skewed by following the pseudoscience of evolution for years.

 

[newpolitics]

One can only marvel at the Simpleton Syndrome that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define “Darwin did it” arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.

The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, it’s because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.

We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their “reasoning” to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists’ arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.

It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore reason and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.

You have issues

 

[UltimateReality]

Your feelings were hurt at being derided for your uneducated, silly and ineffectual description of "over breeding" and not at all understanding the terms and definition s you were writing out.

Both line breeding and overbreeding are not good for the breed for the reasons I stated.

What is "overbreeding"?

Heyzeus H. Chrust, but you are such a clown.

Guess you're the clown, liar.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/overbreeding

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hollie]

What breeders have reached a dead end?

Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.

I read an article on both sugar beets and corn they ran in to this problem.

Did you take away from the article that vegetables were being over-bred? That sounds like a supply vs. demand thing.

 

[Hollie]

Both line breeding and overbreeding are not good for the breed for the reasons I stated.

What is "overbreeding"?

Heyzeus H. Chrust, but you are such a clown.

Guess you're the clown, liar.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You still can't understand the terms and definitions after they were explained to you?

 

[UltimateReality]

What is "overbreeding"?

Heyzeus H. Chrust, but you are such a clown.

Guess you're the clown, liar.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You still can't understand the terms and definitions after they were explained to you?

overbreeding - definition of overbreeding by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Hollie]

One can only marvel at the Simpleton Syndrome that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define “Darwin did it” arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.

The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, it’s because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.

We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their “reasoning” to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists’ arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.

It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore reason and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.

You have issues

You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.

 

[UltimateReality]

One can only marvel at the Simpleton Syndrome that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define “Darwin did it” arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.

The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, it’s because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.

We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their “reasoning” to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists’ arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.

It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore reason and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.

You have issues

You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.

Proof positive that you have no clue what you are even cutting and pasting. You really are clueless on how to respond to the most basic arguments presented here without your atheists sources and even when you cite them, you don't even know what you are citing as proven here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-810.html#post6468902

 

[Hollie]

Guess you're the clown, liar.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You still can't understand the terms and definitions after they were explained to you?

overbreeding - definition of overbreeding by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

And yet you still can't manage to cobbled together a meaningful description of over-breeding as it relates to line-breeding. Your frantic cutting and pasting has again befuddled the argument you needed others to make for you.

 

[UltimateReality]

Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.

Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.

There is no proof you exist.

 

[UltimateReality]

As I noted previously, christian creationist tend to run for the exits when their sacred cows are sent to the barn.

So yes, I know there are those who will close their eyes, cover their virtual ears and screech in a haunting falsetto to avoid the modest retrospective but...


...allow me the occasion to whack-a fundie.

I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.

What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?

I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst

 

[Hollie]

You have issues

You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.

Proof positive that you have no clue what you are even cutting and pasting. You really are clueless on how to respond to the most basic arguments presented here without your atheists sources and even when you cite them, you don't even know what you are citing as proven here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-810.html#post6468902

What a shame that your Christian creationist mindset allows you the privilege of dishonesty and deceit. You careless plagiarized my earlier past and you have no issue with that.

What a shame that lies and cheating are a part your 'religion".

 

[Hollie]

I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.

What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?

I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst

.

 

[UltimateReality]

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.

The answer to YWC's question is simple. There isn't a discernible, consistent selective pressure to push one species towards any particular traits for a long enough period of time, in the context of labratory trials or on the timescales we are used to. Evolution is not deterministic. There is no pre-determined set of reproductive events that will eventually produce a "macroevolutionary" event. The fact that we have witnessed speciation both in the lab and in nature should be evidence enough.

Funny that you ask such probing questions of evolution, and yet, no such questions can even be asked of your intelligent designer, because it has no ontology, other than its "intelligence." This is a cover up for "god." Plain and simple. The sooner you admit this, the sooner we can end this thread.

Here is what you are missing excrement for neurons, breeding is an intelligently directed process which on the evolutionary timescale, would equate to accelerating the process 100 or even 1000 fold. Yet, how long do you think the breeder would have to wait around before he could pick out the cat traits and breed a dog into a cat??? Forever is the correct response. Genes make this impossible.

 

[UltimateReality]

Wait, how is ID falsifiable?

Dude, you are sloooooowwwww. I have explained this to you at least 10 times.