Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

It does more than predict, it identifies. We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.

This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.

Rabid cultists like to point to the self-correcting nature of science as a weakness. On the contrary, it’s a virtue. It allows for the growth of knowledge as opposed to the unchanging and error-filled proscriptions of biblical tales and fables.

This is why pressing Christian creationists for a description of how they account for the diversity of life on the planet is such a chore. They find themselves to be wholly inadequate except to blather on about “the gawds did it”. Just because fundies don't understand evolution does not mean that it did not happen. It’s also a common theme among fundies that their denial of the fact of evolution has nothing to do with the science involved, but everything to do with upsetting their literal interpretation of the bible.

It’s laughable to realize that there are no hypotheses as part of “creation science”. That’s because hypotheses (with reference to the relevant science community), cannot further the advancement of "creationism". It’s also laughable to realize that “creation science” has no theories. How strange, because a theory (in the accepted science framework), is a plausible explanation for a physical event or a phenomenon. A valid scientific theory, such as an explanation that makes specific predictions, is substantiated by repeatable experiments testable physical evidence. The results of those tests and experiments must then be available for duplication by others, and must be potentially falsifiable.

As usual, posing these challenges to the rabid Christian creationist cultists leaves us only with the sound of crickets chirping in the distance.

You mean when they jump the gun before the facts are in

 

[Youwerecreated]

It does more than predict, it identifies. We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.

This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.

While indeed we are still in the discovery phase of individual genes' roles, we know for a fact that over the course of millions of years, many genes become superfluous, since other forces are at play which turn them on and off, and many are no longer turned on ... such as the gene for our tails.

We know that conclusively since a simple plant, while far less complex than a human, has much longer gene strands, since plants have been around longer than we have, despite the 6-day, rest on the 7th day, myth, which has proven to be utter bunk.

And any book that starts off wrong, is likely to be wrong throughout. The Bible is thus highly unreliable.

Prime example of a vivid imagination at play. Just because you were taught this nonsense it must be a fact, correct ? Please let's get back on topic how mutations provide beneficial change to an organism and mutation fixation.

 

[newpolitics]

Explain how harmful mutations would be allowed, but for some reason beneficial ones are selected against? Your bias against beneficial is so obviously self-serving, because it would destroy your assertion that Evo is bunk. In reality? You have no basis for claiming beneficial mutations wouldn't happen.

 

[Youwerecreated]

When it comes to meiosis, there is no repair mechanism, because there is no time. The cell had already been made with the copying mistake included, so what are you referring to? If outside radiation causing a mutation to a cell in an already existing organism, attempts will be made to repair it, of course. This is not possible within the four cells created during meiosis. Are you suggesting these repair proteins open up all of the gametes ever made, search through all if the DNA, do a comparison to the existing DNA in one if the parent genes... This doesn't even make plausible sense. A mutation during meiosis would be left as is, and ale to express itself in an offspring unfettered.

We observed and studied both natural occurring and induced mutations. Sure some get through the repair mechanisms but most were neutral causing no change and that would be because of the repairing enzymes. The ones that did cause change were harmful to the offspring with either shorter life spans and or was deformed. No benefit was ever observed in flies due to mutations. The reason fliues were used is the short life span to begin with and the many generations of flies that could be observed along with mutation fixation.

Very few traits were changed and very few were passed on to future generations. The repair mechnisms had eliminated the changes and the flies returned to being normal is that not against what evolutionist claim ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Note that I responded directly to a question posed by you. If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.

Astonishing. Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)

You go off on your bad analogies along with using the wrong terms. Everyone knows the University of Arizona is a fine institution for the sciences.

Okay; school me. What within my comment, to which you responded, was an analogy?

Cutting your finger for one.

This was not an analogy but you seem to only lock in on gene mutation as the mechanism for evolution. We know that not enough new information can be produced through mutations they have been working on other areas to where this new genetic data could come from, Also you really won't see fitness passed on to future generations from copying errors. Things get better from mistakes,really ?

 

[newpolitics]

You didn't really answer my question. You would have to have a repair gene repairing gamete cells in order for your assertion to be true. This isn't possible because there is no reference for the information in the gametes: it is new information, being a mixture of the parents genes. Therefore, there is no way to know what is mutated information or not. Given that there is no possibility for there to be regulation of mutations during meiosis, any and all mutations are able to be passed onto the young if those gametes are the ones that are fertilized during sex.

You are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization when you concluded, based on your limited sample size, that because you did not see any beneficial mutations, they do not happen.

 

[Hollie]

This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.

Rabid cultists like to point to the self-correcting nature of science as a weakness. On the contrary, it’s a virtue. It allows for the growth of knowledge as opposed to the unchanging and error-filled proscriptions of biblical tales and fables.

This is why pressing Christian creationists for a description of how they account for the diversity of life on the planet is such a chore. They find themselves to be wholly inadequate except to blather on about “the gawds did it”. Just because fundies don't understand evolution does not mean that it did not happen. It’s also a common theme among fundies that their denial of the fact of evolution has nothing to do with the science involved, but everything to do with upsetting their literal interpretation of the bible.

It’s laughable to realize that there are no hypotheses as part of “creation science”. That’s because hypotheses (with reference to the relevant science community), cannot further the advancement of "creationism". It’s also laughable to realize that “creation science” has no theories. How strange, because a theory (in the accepted science framework), is a plausible explanation for a physical event or a phenomenon. A valid scientific theory, such as an explanation that makes specific predictions, is substantiated by repeatable experiments testable physical evidence. The results of those tests and experiments must then be available for duplication by others, and must be potentially falsifiable.

As usual, posing these challenges to the rabid Christian creationist cultists leaves us only with the sound of crickets chirping in the distance.

You mean when they jump the gun before the facts are in

As usual, you make no sense. Unless you're cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, your posts amount to silly one-liners.

Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.


"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."

Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33


What is truly laughable about creationist is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationist can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

 

[newpolitics]

As I already explained previously, it is much harder to create a beneficial mutation by virtue of what is defined as fitness. Relative to the possible combinations of codons in the DNA, only a small amount represent code viable for life. Therefore, it is much easier to mess up the code, than to add something constructive to it. By analogy, it is much easier to close your eyes and carelessly run around your living room and create a bigger mess, but every so often, were one so inclined, would you find an actual improvement to the room. Perhaps you moved a piece of furniture into a better position that improves the room as a hole.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Indeed; I would have thought that would be the case. However, you seem to be the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the creation myth, which itself derived of dogmatic and ignorant thinking by primitive humans.

Possible?

Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination from primitive humans.

Possible ?

No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.

Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.

 

[newpolitics]

Ywc, you are claiming that beneficial mutations can't happen. I want to know, how are you rationally deducing this? As far as I can tell, you are simply using induction from what you've seen. This is flawed in making a conclusion such as you have.

 

[Hollie]

When it comes to meiosis, there is no repair mechanism, because there is no time. The cell had already been made with the copying mistake included, so what are you referring to? If outside radiation causing a mutation to a cell in an already existing organism, attempts will be made to repair it, of course. This is not possible within the four cells created during meiosis. Are you suggesting these repair proteins open up all of the gametes ever made, search through all if the DNA, do a comparison to the existing DNA in one if the parent genes... This doesn't even make plausible sense. A mutation during meiosis would be left as is, and ale to express itself in an offspring unfettered.

We observed and studied both natural occurring and induced mutations. Sure some get through the repair mechanisms but most were neutral causing no change and that would be because of the repairing enzymes. The ones that did cause change were harmful to the offspring with either shorter life spans and or was deformed. No benefit was ever observed in flies due to mutations. The reason fliues were used is the short life span to begin with and the many generations of flies that could be observed along with mutation fixation.

Very few traits were changed and very few were passed on to future generations. The repair mechnisms had eliminated the changes and the flies returned to being normal is that not against what evolutionist claim ?

I think it’s important to understand the creationist proclivity for falsified “quotes”, misrepresentation and bad analogies.

“Beneficial mutations” can only be determined relative to environment and fitness for survival in that environment.

This is more chapter and verse in creationist propaganda.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Explain how harmful mutations would be allowed, but for some reason beneficial ones are selected against? Your bias against beneficial is so obviously self-serving, because it would destroy your assertion that Evo is bunk. In reality? You have no basis for claiming beneficial mutations wouldn't happen.

Pretty simple really,compare the number of mutations that really provided a benefit to an organism that has been observed vs the harmful mutations that result in genetic disorders. 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and counting.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ywc, you are claiming that beneficial mutations can't happen. I want to know, how are you rationally deducing this? As far as I can tell, you are simply using induction from what you've seen. This is flawed in making a conclusion such as you have.

I have answered this question many times.

 

[UltimateReality]

So you have nothing. Check.

They are designed to work together you foolish, blind man. That is the indication it is not part of God's plan. Also, answer me this, why do gay men go for men that act like women? Why do lesbians choose women that look like dudes? Again, more libtard logic. If you are biologically gay, then shouldn't you be attracted to members of the same sex that embody the behavioral characteristics of that sex? Also, the over the top flamboyant behavior isn't genetic. It is purposefully put on. The emphasis on their esses is purposeful as well. Their speech isn't genetic.

If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? Do you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?

Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.

 

[Hollie]

Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination from primitive humans.

Possible ?

No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.

Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.

“Primitive human” would thus apply to the modern day creationist. With the availability of knowledge and machinery we are equipped with and not used by the creationist, they’re looking quite primitive.

Why do you think Ann Gauger from the Disco 'tute would need to produce false and misleading photos of herself in a "lab" that she never entered?

It seems like a lie. Isn't the creationist rather primitive according to your description? Afterall, they're caling themselves "creation scientists" yet they do no research, publish no peer reviewed material and perform no field investigations.

I think "Charlatan" is the term I'm looking for.

 

[Hollie]

They are designed to work together you foolish, blind man. That is the indication it is not part of God's plan. Also, answer me this, why do gay men go for men that act like women? Why do lesbians choose women that look like dudes? Again, more libtard logic. If you are biologically gay, then shouldn't you be attracted to members of the same sex that embody the behavioral characteristics of that sex? Also, the over the top flamboyant behavior isn't genetic. It is purposefully put on. The emphasis on their esses is purposeful as well. Their speech isn't genetic.

If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? Do you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?

Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.

Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.

 

[UltimateReality]

If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? Do you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?

Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.

Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.

I wasn't talking to you. You are just noise. You continue with the same baiting techniques like claiming there are no peer reviewed studies and that ID doesn't have a hypothesis when this has been proven to you over 10 times, but yet you still pathetically attempt the same stupid statements to get my attention. Are you really that desperate? Don't you see how no one is responding to you anymore? You're post are totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Of course, like a child, you just want attention, even if it is negative attention, from me, so now you can get all excited again.

 

[Hollie]

Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.

Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.

I wasn't talking to you. You are just noise. You continue with the same baiting techniques like claiming there are no peer reviewed studies and that ID doesn't have a hypothesis when this has been proven to you over 10 times, but yet you still pathetically attempt the same stupid statements to get my attention. Are you really that desperate? Don't you see how no one is responding to you anymore? You're post are totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Of course, like a child, you just want attention, even if it is negative attention, from me, so now you can get all excited again.

That was a rather poor attempt at sidestepping. What gays you know, if any, are hardly defining of the entire population of gays.

Secondly, your claim about Christian creationists publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals is nonsensical. Why not show us the peer reviewed papers that the ICR or Biologos submitted as the result of their “research”?

Can’t you see that your desperate bids for attention cause you to appear like the desperate fundie? I just have no issue correcting your errors.

 

[Koios]

This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.

While indeed we are still in the discovery phase of individual genes' roles, we know for a fact that over the course of millions of years, many genes become superfluous, since other forces are at play which turn them on and off, and many are no longer turned on ... such as the gene for our tails.

We know that conclusively since a simple plant, while far less complex than a human, has much longer gene strands, since plants have been around longer than we have, despite the 6-day, rest on the 7th day, myth, which has proven to be utter bunk.

And any book that starts off wrong, is likely to be wrong throughout. The Bible is thus highly unreliable.

Prime example of a vivid imagination at play. Just because you were taught this nonsense it must be a fact, correct ? Please let's get back on topic how mutations provide beneficial change to an organism and mutation fixation.

No. The many facts (all known) lead to theories so valid as to be widely recognized truths.

 

[newpolitics]

Ywc, you are claiming that beneficial mutations can't happen. I want to know, how are you rationally deducing this? As far as I can tell, you are simply using induction from what you've seen. This is flawed in making a conclusion such as you have.

I have answered this question many times.

You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.