Creationists

[ima]

Evolution they speak of is merely conjecture the gene itself causes belief of a higher power the scriptures said that God put that into our conscience. Some see this as evidence of God confirming his word mind you what was written in the bible was written long before the discovery of the gene.

So you believe in evolution.... sometimes. Gotcha.

So if god put this gene (that they never talked about, btw) in us, why do some people not believe in god? And then I assume they could do gene therapy to make us all believe in god? Are you fucking serious? Or just pulling my leg?
The bible wasn't written by god, so it's not his words, so that's not even relevant to what we're talking about.


"Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature."

I don't presume to know why there is precision in nature and neither should you. Or can you show me actual proof of your designer? No? Then stfu about that. Okay?

No the proper term would be microadaptations which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.

 

[newpolitics]

Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen
David Klinghoffer December 19, 2012 12:23 AM | Permalink

Here's the most ludicrous criticism of intelligent design that I've come across so far this week. Richard B. Hoppe at Panda's Thumb is echoed by Casey Johnston at Ars Technica in jeering that a video I highlighted -- Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger speaking about population genetics -- was filmed in front of a green screen. In a post-production effect Ann was given a more relevant backdrop, a stock photo of a lab.

Shock! Horror! Yes, it's true. I confess.

Gauger, a PhD in developmental biology who was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard, has the science on her side. It's a typical Darwinist feint: When you don't have the arguments and you don't have the science, change the subject and pile on the red herrings. Casey Johnson, who dismisses our little video as a "nonsensical rant," can't reply to Dr. Gauger on the merits. If she could, she would.

Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen - Evolution News & Views

I thought you were leaving. Ready to hear more about how ID is just an argument from induction? Cool. Let's go.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you believe in evolution.... sometimes. Gotcha.

So if god put this gene (that they never talked about, btw) in us, why do some people not believe in god? And then I assume they could do gene therapy to make us all believe in god? Are you fucking serious? Or just pulling my leg?
The bible wasn't written by god, so it's not his words, so that's not even relevant to what we're talking about.


"Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature."

I don't presume to know why there is precision in nature and neither should you. Or can you show me actual proof of your designer? No? Then stfu about that. Okay?

No the proper term would be microadaptations which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.

Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen
David Klinghoffer December 19, 2012 12:23 AM | Permalink

Here's the most ludicrous criticism of intelligent design that I've come across so far this week. Richard B. Hoppe at Panda's Thumb is echoed by Casey Johnston at Ars Technica in jeering that a video I highlighted -- Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger speaking about population genetics -- was filmed in front of a green screen. In a post-production effect Ann was given a more relevant backdrop, a stock photo of a lab.

Shock! Horror! Yes, it's true. I confess.

Gauger, a PhD in developmental biology who was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard, has the science on her side. It's a typical Darwinist feint: When you don't have the arguments and you don't have the science, change the subject and pile on the red herrings. Casey Johnson, who dismisses our little video as a "nonsensical rant," can't reply to Dr. Gauger on the merits. If she could, she would.

Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen - Evolution News & Views

I thought you were leaving. Ready to hear more about how ID is just an argument from induction? Cool. Let's go.

What is your point here ?

 

[ima]

No the proper term would be microadaptations which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.

Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?

There's a name for what you're talking about: evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?

There's a name for what you're talking about: evolution.

Not evolution,to adapt is a natural ability that doesn't require mutations. Evolution on the other hand has to happen through a gain of new genetic information through mutations.

 

[Hollie]

No the proper term would be microadaptations which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.

Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?

Are you aware that organisms actually do adapt to their environments?

Creationist may choose to deny this but it is demonstrated phenomenon in nature... creationist conspiracy theories aside.

 

[Hollie]

Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?

There's a name for what you're talking about: evolution.

Not evolution,to adapt is a natural ability that doesn't require mutations. Evolution on the other hand has to happen through a gain of new genetic information through mutations.

So, you're suggesting that the flu virus, for one example, has "natural abilities". Where did such abilities come from?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?

Are you aware that organisms actually do adapt to their environments?

Creationist may choose to deny this but it is demonstrated phenomenon in nature... creationist conspiracy theories aside.

Yes which is an ability that all organisms possess, has nothing to do with an organism evolving in to a new kind.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There's a name for what you're talking about: evolution.

Not evolution,to adapt is a natural ability that doesn't require mutations. Evolution on the other hand has to happen through a gain of new genetic information through mutations.

So, you're suggesting that the flu virus, for one example, has "natural abilities". Where did such abilities come from?

A virus consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat.An infection or disease can be caused by such an agent.

A virus is not a living organism and does not possess the ability to adapt as you suggest the host cell is what has the ability to adapt.

Only living organisms have the ability to adapt so your question makes no sense.

 

[Hollie]

Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?

Are you aware that organisms actually do adapt to their environments?

Creationist may choose to deny this but it is demonstrated phenomenon in nature... creationist conspiracy theories aside.

Yes which is an ability that all organisms possess, has nothing to do with an organism evolving in to a new kind.

Where do you think vestigial bones come from? Are they spare parts left over from tinkering by the gawds?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you aware that organisms actually do adapt to their environments?

Creationist may choose to deny this but it is demonstrated phenomenon in nature... creationist conspiracy theories aside.

Yes which is an ability that all organisms possess, has nothing to do with an organism evolving in to a new kind.

Where do you think vestigial bones come from? Are they spare parts left over from tinkering by the gawds?

No they are not spare parts left over they are parts that have lost function over time showing that the curse on man for sin is alive and well. The list of such items are decreasing because they are finding many of these things still perform a function.

You are speaking of both bones and organs.

 

[ima]

Not evolution,to adapt is a natural ability that doesn't require mutations. Evolution on the other hand has to happen through a gain of new genetic information through mutations.

So, you're suggesting that the flu virus, for one example, has "natural abilities". Where did such abilities come from?

A virus consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat.An infection or disease can be caused by such an agent.

A virus is not a living organism and does not possess the ability to adapt as you suggest the host cell is what has the ability to adapt.

Only living organisms have the ability to adapt so your question makes no sense.

I used to be a meat eater but my thinking EVOLVED to a more compassionate and healthy lifestyle. And I'm passing these traits down to my 2 daughters who are both vegetarians and against cruelty to animals. See how that works?

 

[Hollie]

Yes which is an ability that all organisms possess, has nothing to do with an organism evolving in to a new kind.

Where do you think vestigial bones come from? Are they spare parts left over from tinkering by the gawds?

No they are not spare parts left over they are parts that have lost function over time showing that the curse on man for sin is alive and well. The list of such items are decreasing because they are finding many of these things still perform a function.

You are speaking of both bones and organs.

So... are whales, for example, (having vestigial "finger-like" bones) also worthy of curses from the gawds?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, you're suggesting that the flu virus, for one example, has "natural abilities". Where did such abilities come from?

A virus consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat.An infection or disease can be caused by such an agent.

A virus is not a living organism and does not possess the ability to adapt as you suggest the host cell is what has the ability to adapt.

Only living organisms have the ability to adapt so your question makes no sense.

I used to be a meat eater but my thinking EVOLVED to a more compassionate and healthy lifestyle. And I'm passing these traits down to my 2 daughters who are both vegetarians and against cruelty to animals. See how that works?

That is called making a choice not evolving.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where do you think vestigial bones come from? Are they spare parts left over from tinkering by the gawds?

No they are not spare parts left over they are parts that have lost function over time showing that the curse on man for sin is alive and well. The list of such items are decreasing because they are finding many of these things still perform a function.

You are speaking of both bones and organs.

So... are whales, for example, (having vestigial "finger-like" bones) also worthy of curses from the gawds?

That is only an assumption that those bones served no purpose.This teaching is based on an assumption that is then is taught as science, the assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals with things that are observable in the here and now.

 

[Hollie]

No they are not spare parts left over they are parts that have lost function over time showing that the curse on man for sin is alive and well. The list of such items are decreasing because they are finding many of these things still perform a function.

You are speaking of both bones and organs.

So... are whales, for example, (having vestigial "finger-like" bones) also worthy of curses from the gawds?

That is only an assumption that those bones served no purpose.This teaching is based on an assumption that is then is taught as science, the assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals with things that are observable in the here and now.

You don't understand what you're writing. Vestigial bones suggest remnants of anatomy that were once used and now serve no purpose. Whales, for example,

Why would the gawds add useless parts to humans and animals alike?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So... are whales, for example, (having vestigial "finger-like" bones) also worthy of curses from the gawds?

That is only an assumption that those bones served no purpose.This teaching is based on an assumption that is then is taught as science, the assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals with things that are observable in the here and now.

You don't understand what you're writing. Vestigial bones suggest remnants of anatomy that were once used and now serve no purpose. Whales, for example,

Why would the gawds add useless parts to humans and animals alike?

No you don't understand these bones assuming they were left over parts and performed no function is nothing but an assumption and no evidence to back the assumption.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So... are whales, for example, (having vestigial "finger-like" bones) also worthy of curses from the gawds?

That is only an assumption that those bones served no purpose.This teaching is based on an assumption that is then is taught as science, the assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals with things that are observable in the here and now.

You don't understand what you're writing. Vestigial bones suggest remnants of anatomy that were once used and now serve no purpose. Whales, for example,

Why would the gawds add useless parts to humans and animals alike?

In humans they use to make the same claim concerning the appendix because we could live without the organ. They have found that the organ stores bacteria and Enzymes that aid in the digestive system.

The science community sometimes rush to an explanation only to be proven wrong later.

 

[Hollie]

That is only an assumption that those bones served no purpose.This teaching is based on an assumption that is then is taught as science, the assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals with things that are observable in the here and now.

You don't understand what you're writing. Vestigial bones suggest remnants of anatomy that were once used and now serve no purpose. Whales, for example,

Why would the gawds add useless parts to humans and animals alike?

No you don't understand these bones assuming they worth left over parts and performed no function is nothing but an assumption and no evidence to back the assumption.

That's a lot of dancing but you're running out of excuses to avoid addressing the issue that the usefulness of vestigial organs / anatomy is assumption.

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.

Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 75-76.

Response:

1. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

2. Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

Links:

Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

References:

1. G. & C. Merriam. 1974. The Merriam-WebsterDictionary. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2. Morris, H., 1974. (see above). 3. Yamamoto, Y. and W. R. Jeffery., 2000. Central role for the lens in cave fish eyedegeneration. Science 289: 631-633.