Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Christian creationist have a predefined agenda. Truth, facts and evidence are if little importance to creationist.

If you had a legitimate argument to present, you would have done so. You cut and paste from creationist websites because science does not support claims to supernaturalism.

The secular atheist does not ?

Quite a pathetic side-step. Creationist have a singular agenda to promote their magical gawds. Science is concerned with facts and demonstration.

That's why your pompous, self-important claim to be a man of science was so laughable.

Hollie you should know your side has an agenda they are constantly attacking anything to do with God.

Hollie why does this go ignored that all living organisms group with other organisms of their own kind ? Why do they look to constantly reproduce with creatures of their own kind ? What was the chance through mutations a new species would be formed and enough of them to continue reproducing the same species ? Why is it that the new species do not reproduce offspring with the features of the species they evolved from ? This is why they had to come up with a mechanism for evolution to happen but they know that mutations are a dead end. The mutations argument is a joke and in my work I could see the truth on my own of that ever being a mechnism for evolution. Mutations destroy genetic information not create new information. What they are saying life evolved through genetic errors how rediculous is that ?

They ignore the obvious evidence and turn to miracles as an explanation. I don't expect you to take on and answer my questions other then a meaning rhetorical response with nothing of substance so this post is for all those that would argue for evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Christian creationist have a predefined agenda. Truth, facts and evidence are if little importance to creationist.

If you had a legitimate argument to present, you would have done so. You cut and paste from creationist websites because science does not support claims to supernaturalism.

The secular atheist does not ?

Quite a pathetic side-step. Creationist have a singular agenda to promote their magical gawds. Science is concerned with facts and demonstration.

That's why your pompous, self-important claim to be a man of science was so laughable.

No my claim was spot on and you are left with a pointless response and lower an accusation agains't me. That is ok I am use to it.

 

[Hollie]

The secular atheist does not ?

Quite a pathetic side-step. Creationist have a singular agenda to promote their magical gawds. Science is concerned with facts and demonstration.

That's why your pompous, self-important claim to be a man of science was so laughable.

Hollie you should know your side has an agenda they are constantly attacking anything to do with God.

Hollie why does this go ignored that all living organisms group with other organisms of their own kind ? Why do they look to constantly reproduce with creatures of their own kind ? What was the chance through mutations a new species would be formed and enough of them to continue reproducing the same species ? Why is it that the new species do not reproduce offspring with the features of the species they evolved from ? This is why they had to come up with a mechanism for evolution to happen but they know that mutations are a dead end. The mutations argument is a joke and in my work I could see the truth on my own of that ever being a mechnism for evolution. Mutations destroy genetic information not create new information. What they are saying life evolved through genetic errors how rediculous is that ?

They ignore the obvious evidence and turn to miracles as an explanation. I don't expect you to take on and answer my questions other then a meaning rhetorical response with nothing of substance so this post is for all those that would argue for evolution.

Your comments only serve to reinforce what is for you, a worldwide conspiracy of scientists, teaching universities and skilled technicians who are all conspiring to ignore your wish that magic gawds really do exist.

You should try and re-read your post from the point of view of one not suffering from your religious paranoia. You do appear quite delusional.

 

[Hollie]

The secular atheist does not ?

Quite a pathetic side-step. Creationist have a singular agenda to promote their magical gawds. Science is concerned with facts and demonstration.

That's why your pompous, self-important claim to be a man of science was so laughable.

No my claim was spot on and you are left with a pointless response and lower an accusation agains't me. That is ok I am use to it.

Many of the hyper-religious suffer from a martyr complex.

 

[UltimateReality]

The predictive power of the Intelligent Design Hypothesis scores another win:

Darwin's God: Cellular Machinery Redesigns Genes For Cold Temperature Operation

 

[UltimateReality]

Sedgwick began his review by explaining that he had read the younger Darwin’s manuscript “with more pain than pleasure.” For while parts were admirable and other parts humorous, there nonetheless were so many passages that Sedgwick read “with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous.”

For Darwin, it seemed to Sedgwick, had abandoned the tried and true method of empirically-based scientific induction and substituted for it his own baseless assumptions:

"Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be
proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements
of philosophical induction?"

Darwin's God: An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation

 

[UltimateReality]

This new research demonstrates yet again how evolutionary predictions about the species patterns don’t really matter. In particular, the evolutionary tree and common descent are not predictions that, when found to be false, falsify evolution. Instead, when found to be false those predictions, as with the many others, are simply forfeited. Therefore practically any pattern can be explained by evolutionary theory. And those that cannot are simply classified as research problems.


Darwin's God: Horizontal Transfer Finally Reaches the Eukaryotes

Once again predictions from Darwinian theory are proven wrong while ID predictions are continually proven.

 

[UltimateReality]

All these things being consider'd, it seems probable to me, that God in the Beginning form'd Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable Particles, of such Sizes and Figures, and with such other Properties, and in such Proportion to Space, as most conduced to the End for which he form'd them; and that these primitive Particles being Solids, are incomparably harder than any porous Bodies compounded of them; even so very hard, as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary Power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first Creation. While the Particles continue entire, they may compose Bodies of one and the same Nature and Texture in all Ages: But should they wear away, or break in pieces, the Nature of Things depending on them, would be changed. Water and Earth, composed of old worn Particles and Fragments of Particles, would not be of the same Nature and Texture now, with Water and Earth composed of entire Particles in the Beginning. And therefore, that Nature may be lasting, the Changes of corporeal Things are to be placed only in the various Separations and new Associations and Motions of these permanent Particles; compound Bodies being apt to break, not in the midst of solid Particles, but where those Particles are laid together, and only touch in a few Points.

As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.

Newton

 

[Big_D2]

I would say the water was a 50 50 mixture. To be honest I don't know the answer nor do I know the complexity of a cell to just happen by chance nor how the planets were alligned conveniently for life to exist and flourish here on this planet.

Surely though the one that created all we see can deal with the issue concerning fish during the flood.

If the water was a 50/50 mixtures then a great number of species would have died and not be around today.

 

[Big_D2]

I am a man of science myself and worked in the field for eleven years. Secularist scientist seem to come up with only theories that could come from a vivid mind while ruling out the possibility of design when it can be seen in nature.

What field of science do you work in?

 

[Big_D2]

"Now...I'm not a Hebrew exegete. But I will tell you that two of the best-known exegetes of the Old Testament in the American evangelical community are Gleason Archer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Walter Kaiser at Gordon Conwell. Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer are respected in the entire United States as being faithful expositors of the Old Testament. Both of them know eight to ten Old Testament languages, and they both have spent their entire lives in Hebrew exegesis. Both of them believe the days of Genesis are...vast, unspecified periods of time, and are in no way required to be literal twenty-four hour days."

Reasons To Believe : "The Age of Earth"

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am a man of science myself and worked in the field for eleven years. Secularist scientist seem to come up with only theories that could come from a vivid mind while ruling out the possibility of design when it can be seen in nature.

What field of science do you work in?

I worked in the field of molecular biology we did cell and mutation research.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would say the water was a 50 50 mixture. To be honest I don't know the answer nor do I know the complexity of a cell to just happen by chance nor how the planets were alligned conveniently for life to exist and flourish here on this planet.

Surely though the one that created all we see can deal with the issue concerning fish during the flood.

If the water was a 50/50 mixtures then a great number of species would have died and not be around today.

I don't have an answer for this.

 

[Hollie]

Once again predictions from Darwinian theory are proven wrong while ID predictions are continually proven.

This is so silly. ID'iot creationism makes no predictions.

Do you find it at all strange that these gawdly miracles only appear on creationist websites?

You should advise Cornelius Hunter to post his nonsense in supermarket tabloids alongside miracle cures for baldness and new weight loss pills.




Sandwalk: Intelligent Design Creationists and Lateral Gene Transfer

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT, also known as Lateral Gene Transfer) has been studied for six decades. We have an excellent understanding of the mechanisms; namely, transformation, transduction, conjugation, fusion, and endosymbiosis. There's nothing new there.

"Darwinism" and "Darwinian evolution" are products of the nineteenth century. The only people who are stuck in that century are the creationists. Modern evolutionary biologists have been at the forefront of "holistic" approaches since the recognition that populations evolve, not individuals. For most biologists, this happened in the 1940s. To put this into perspective, that's at least sixty years ago, or 1% of the entire history of Earth!

I'm actually quite happy to promote the "unseating [of] Darwinian evolution" as anyone who reads Sandwalk will attest. David Taylor and Denyse O'Leary are completely incapable of recognizing that legitimate challenges to the old-fashioned way of thinking about evolution are now part of mainstream biology. In fairness, what can we expect from people who think that a 2500 year old book written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek still contains relevant information about science?

"Design" fails to provide a coherent context for anything. I've yet to see anyone explain how and when God intervened to create modern life.

 

[UltimateReality]

People that claim ID can't have predictive power are totally ignorant of the theory and the science behind it.

"Intelligent Design is relatively new in its present form. Proponents often argue that there are features of biology that look like engineering, and in particular, that the programming of life, the DNA software that goes along with the cellular hardware, is analogous to the programming of computers. However, we haven’t yet been able to fully unpack the implications of that, partly because both computer science and genomics are developing disciplines. The following is merely a speculative suggestion in the hopes of inspiring further investigation:

Could it be that the designer(s) of the genomes of living organisms made use of code libraries in order to do so, as is done in computer software engineering?

A code library is a suite of functions which logically go together, e.g. math functions or input/output functions. They accelerate the design process by hiving functions off into a separable module, which needs to be very carefully designed and debugged, but only once, and then they can be used in many programs. This saves rewriting the functions each time, and means that large programs can be specified with much less source code. When a particular program is compiled from source code, it often gets several such libraries ‘linked’ to it, that get added to the final executable. Not all the functions in the library need necessarily be used, meaning that the final executable could contain functions that are not used. Furthermore, in real life, programmers often leave quite a bit of non-functional information in the executable file. This includes, for example, information that aids debugging.

By analogy, the same might be true of the genomes we actually observe: if genomes are examples of executable code, then what if each genome has been ‘compiled’ from a much simpler ‘source code’ which would be simpler and easier to read if we had access to it directly. Thus ID infers from the observable genome to a simpler (intermediate) cause; some kind of source code. What if the ‘compiled’ genome contains whole code-libraries that have been linked in, but not all functions are used, and some were deactivated? Wouldn’t that be a natural explanation for true pseudogenes, that is pseudogenes that really are totally non-functional? In fact wouldn’t that be evidence for a particular design model: source-code + code-libraries + compilation."

Are pseudogenes evidence of code libraries? (a speculative suggestion) | Uncommon Descent

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Now...I'm not a Hebrew exegete. But I will tell you that two of the best-known exegetes of the Old Testament in the American evangelical community are Gleason Archer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Walter Kaiser at Gordon Conwell. Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer are respected in the entire United States as being faithful expositors of the Old Testament. Both of them know eight to ten Old Testament languages, and they both have spent their entire lives in Hebrew exegesis. Both of them believe the days of Genesis are...vast, unspecified periods of time, and are in no way required to be literal twenty-four hour days."

Reasons To Believe : "The Age of Earth"

Reasons to dismiss the old earth views.

Counterexamples to an Old Earth - Conservapedia

 

[UltimateReality]

Don't buy the Atheist lies, ID is falsifiable.

"Functionally specific, complex information and associated information [FSCO/I] — especially, digitally coded FSCI [dFSCI] — are seen as two of the strongest signs of design as cause.

For instance, when you see this post, you do not wonder or debate the odds of different letters being strung by chance [e.g. e in English is typically about 1/8 of the text], you intuitively immediately know that this is best explained as the work of an intelligent, purposeful agent acting towards a goal and based on his knowledge of the language, codes and topic in question. And, analytically, we can substantiate that intuition."

"6 –> And, once we see that for biological life we have to account for 100,000 to 1 mn bits or so of functionally specific digital information, then we will see that for major body plans, we need to account for 10 – 100 mn bits, dozens of times over. (E.g. I was just looking at a description of how plants make wood fibres and bind them together — an amazing nanofactory!)

7 –> The dFSCI search space challenge applies to not only origin of life, but its elaboration into major body plans. And, again, the only empirically warranted source for dFSCI is design; which is backed up by the needle in haystack and monkeys at keyboards type analyses and simulations that objectors are so desperate to deflect.

8 –> All you would have to do to irretrievably break design theory, would be to credibly empirically demonstrate how by chance and mechanical necessity, without intelligent intervention, dFSCI can originate on a reasonable scope of resources."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...nalytically-reliable-sign-of-design-as-cause/

 

[Hollie]

People that claim ID can't have predictive power are totally ignorant of the theory and the science behind it.

Hyper-religious ID'iots don't understand that ID'iot "science" is religion, not science. This is why charlatans such as Ann Gauger, fronting for the Disco'tute, use lies and deceit about creationist "science" labs.

 

[Hollie]

Don't by the Atheist lies, ID is falsifiable

Yes, how predictable.

The ID'iot arguments that Meyer stole from Behe.

 

[Hollie]

"Now...I'm not a Hebrew exegete. But I will tell you that two of the best-known exegetes of the Old Testament in the American evangelical community are Gleason Archer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Walter Kaiser at Gordon Conwell. Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer are respected in the entire United States as being faithful expositors of the Old Testament. Both of them know eight to ten Old Testament languages, and they both have spent their entire lives in Hebrew exegesis. Both of them believe the days of Genesis are...vast, unspecified periods of time, and are in no way required to be literal twenty-four hour days."

Reasons To Believe : "The Age of Earth"

Reasons to dismiss the old earth views.

Counterexamples to an Old Earth - Conservapedia

Reason 8043 and counting as to why people point and laugh at creationists.